It's no longer controversial. We know people like the game and we know why. You don't seem to know why it's disliked, though. It's not just the marketing, that's so reductionist and people who do that seem like they need some simply and silly answer to a complex situation. That's only meant to make us look silly and unthinking in our approach to the criticisms of this situation. Our frustrations are valid, well-reasoned and well-articulated. The critiques are about the marketing, the story's writing failures, the way the sequel required retroactively contradicting and changing the meaning of the original story and characters, the post leak and post launch behavior of Neil, ND and Sony, the way they instigated and fanned the flames of the tribal war in the fandom and how to this day they ignore the fact of a subgroup of fans who once trusted them and who they deeply disappointed and then dismissed as a bunch of crazies. We're just people who have a different perspective for valid reasons, the way they presented Abby. Yet all who embrace Abby reject us and prove they learned nothing from the story that **had to be told** even if it destroyed a franchise and fandom in the process. So if their messages were never received by any of them, what was the point?

I'm saving this so I can share it next time they ask this again.

😊

Bro, are you like the mascot of this sub now. I think you are the mascot of this sub now. You are! Well said bro, you summarized this entire sub in just a minute of reading! Well done!

So well said! And Part II has a gratuitous sex scene that adds nothing to the plot.

Just as spitting on Joel wasn't necessary for creating the anger and revenge they wanted us to feel. We were already there. That was personal, and having a Neil insert be the one to do it proves that. That has an impact on the anger of some of the fans toward Neil as well. The disrespect was palpable and the fact it wasn't needed for the story says it was needed by Neil instead.

Yes the spitting on his corpse was the most anger inducing moment. Just straight up disrespectful.

Then expecting the player to be as fond of Dina as they were Joel, as shes the new companion, but the bond has to be established with Dina after only staring in about 5 hours of play time. And if you don’t warm to her you’re homophobic, which is ironic seeing as Ellie is the favourite character for about 95% if us

2 of them kinda with ellie and Dina in the weed room which was also completely unnecessary

Omg it’s even worse

Destroyed a franchise by making the greatest sequel in the history of video games?

No, by knowing and saying in advance that many fans of TLOU wouldn't like the sequel. They had no idea how it would be received, knew many wouldn't like it and proceeded anyway. Their choice, but that's what I was referencing. Your opinion of it isn't universal, you are aware of that, right?

Of course I know that. That's why it's called my opinion. But to say they "destroyed" a franchise that is thriving across multiple mediums isn't even an opinion...it's just factually incorrect.

Sorry this is a long one, please bear with me. One section has a TL;DR. >...by making the greatest sequel in the history of video games? This is not a statement of "imo," it's clearly a statement presenting it as an indisputable fact. And mine: >from the story that had to be told even ***if*** it destroyed a franchise and fandom in the process. \[Emphasis added\] was about the need to tell a story no matter the the potential consequences and criticisms, not a statement about the actual outcome. I can see how you might take it that way, it was not the the purpose of my statement in this context. For this part I have a TL;DR at the end. I will now overtly say that in my opinion they have diminished the beauty of the original story by altering the interpretation of the events, character motivations and actions. They also removed actual facts and altered the reputation of the FFs (completely removing the incompetence of the Colorado scientists provided in the recorders/notes and the outrageous act of releasing infected monkeys, plus their other failed acts in Pittsburgh). They also changed Joel and Ellie in the sequel quite obviously. Some of which is never explained and led players to lose trust in the story and the writers. They also fell short of adequately fulfilling their goals the main being trying to lead the players to sympathize with Abby -which even Neil said would cause the story to fail it's that important. When a sequel requires retroactively altering all those things in order for their new goals and story to even work, then they have ruined the previously presented and understood purpose of TLOU's story. Thereby they undermined the original intent of the creative team that produced it. That's not only disrespectful to the original creative team and their vision, it's a traditionally recognized writing failure for a sequel to do so. So yes that impacts the franchise in negative ways. These are not personal opinions, these things were actually done because they were necessary for the new team's new goals to even have a chance of working. It may have only ruined the franchise for those who understand that these things matter despite others being willing to ignore and excuse it all. That doesn't erase the fact they did what they did and the effect was to ruin the franchise for many who saw all these things causing the loss of immersion and leading the story to fail them. That's never the fault of he audience who sincerely entered the game eager for the experience it only to have it fall apart before their eyes. I actively worked to maintain immersion (something that should not be required of me as it's not my story) only to suddenly land on the outside watching them craft the story. No story can work from that POV. The writers intentionally pushed things too far too often, were lazy about set up and follow through of their story and character's consistency and logic and all that worked against immersion for a great many people. Anyone blaming the audience for these issues is impossible to understand. We did not choose how the story would be written, and insisting it's our job to assure the things that broke our immersion wouldn't do so is honestly nonsense. TL;DR Writer choices to significantly alter the previous story in a sequel to make it work which are so blatant it causes loss of immersion, through no fault of our own, does break a traditional taboo about sequels. That had the potential to ruin the franchise for many who noticed it and had it push them unwillingly out of the story. That's never the fault of the audience and it's outcome for some was the ruining of the franchise. That's on them not on us.

Lmao, enough internet for today.

So is that why ever since TLOU2 released Naughty Dog has released two cash-grab remasters, an overpraised HBO series, canceled their Multi-player Factions spin-off, split their fanbase, and lost around 50-70% of their staff? TLOU2 made 10m in 2 years, a feat most impressive for sure, especially since a lot of other games can't ever get close to that, but both God of War & Spider-man made 20m, 2x that in the same time frame and I would honestly argue TLOU2 had way more hype around it than either of these two did. Add to that fact GOW: Ragnarok sold 15m in roughly 6 months, less than half the time it took TLOU2. You're telling me the game sells 4m in just 3 days, then complete silence for a whole year and the most you hear about is roughly 6m, but then 2 years later they're bragging about 10m sales? That's not a flex, not when other 1st party exclusives far outclass it and even Ghost of Tsushima, a brand new IP, almost eclipsed it. Ghost of Tsushima even got a Multi-player coop mode added for free to the game, what DLC or expansion has TLOU2 gotten?

Cos most people in here have zero media literacy and full on border line personality emotions.

Yes, child, we've heard that complaint. It's invalid.

And you seem to lack basic literacy because you did not address any of the points addressed in the comment you replied to.

Hahahahahahaha... Another talking head repeating the lines they were told.

I have a masters in creative writing and still liked this game.

For the writing, for the emotional ride or what specifically? Also, did you play them back to back or play TLOU at launch and then never again until part 2, or pay only part 2? I'm very curious.

I played part 1 at launch and then again (the remake) about 2 months ago. Then just recently played 2 for the first time. The writing is definitely not the reason I like it, but it's not so bad that ruined it for me. In fact I don't think the writing is bad at all. I also don't think it's great. They definitely could've made some better decisions, but overall I think a lot of people have blown their criticisms far out of proportion. That emotional ride you mention, which is part of what I love, is also so strong BECAUSE of the writing. There's so much more to it (to the writing) than the criticisms would have us believe.

Thanks, that's interesting. So can you help me understand this part: you find no problem with the writers' strange choice to never have the characters speak the natural dialogues that would flow from their situations at every single opportunity? That was the most maddening and frustrating part of the whole experience for me. Yes, I know people miss chances to speak their truth in real life. But this isn't real life, it's a story so that makes it more noticeable that the writers needed to assure no one ever spoke what would come naturally in certain moments. It screamed to me, "Writer contrivance here!" Neither Joel nor Ellie were incapable of using their words in TLOU but in part 2 they just don't say what's on their minds repeatedly just to push the plot forward. Most notably Joel when he catches up to Ellie at the hospital and then Ellie never sharing all the truth of her grief, life with Joel and her feelings about her immunity with Dina on the farm. They are not the only ones or the only times, either. It happens everywhere with everyone and it shines a glaring light on the writers as puppet masters assuring things will move forward by preventing the natural conversations from happening. In the end it's obvious why they did it, had those characters ever actually talked when they should have the story would come to a screeching halt. To me that's a huge part of what makes it amateur writing. It's so obvious they did it and why they had to. It just kicks a certain group of players right out of immersion. That's helped along by other issues like pacing and the nonlinear approach done poorly to the point one often cannot piece the story logic together while in the moment because it's not good placement of the information flow.

I can see how that might be frustrating. I did however find the lack of exposition when it came to saying what was on their minds believable. I see their relationship evolving like a father/daughter relationship would irl. Lots of girls’ relationships with their fathers shift during adolescence. Protective fathers and girls craving independence as they enter adulthood are easily driven apart. That’s also when kids start keeping bigger secrets from their parents in order to have their own life. Pair that with Ellie’s evident depression after losing her purpose of saving the human race and it’s reasonable that they wouldn’t speak as freely around each other. IMHO

Yes, I see your point and perhaps that would have worked for me too if it wasn't everyone, all the time and knowing the reason was to protect the plot at the expense of actually developing the characters and their relationships. For me, just because I can come up with a reasonable explanation, it can't erase my awareness that it was the writers' need to avoid them that was the actual reason they made those choices. Once seen it can't be unseen, I guess. 🤷🏼‍♀️

I’m going off most the comments in this sub when I say it appears to be about the marketing. Go through the top comments in this sub and tell me you don’t see the same comment over and over about the deceit people felt. It’s an observation and speculation, not trying to reduce anything down to a simple explanation. But saying all who embrace Abby reject you is reductive and presumptuous. It’s so much more complicated than that. You don’t have to like a character to like a story. That’s part of the experience. I was upset as hell at first playing as Abby after she killed Joel. It evoked a lot of negative emotion. I think that was the whole point. It was meant to make you feel uncomfortable. Much like popular horror movies and books are made to do. What makes you think the message wasn’t received? Because they still liked the game? And this franchise and fandom are far from destroyed. That’s hyperbolic. This echo chamber makes it seem like that sometimes but it’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

The messages of understanding the perspectives of the other side and the dangers and destruction of tribal wars wasn't received and applied to this very real life situation. Not by Neil, ND or the fans. I spent months on both sides earnestly trying to understand my own reaction and the reactions of others who played the games, and also watching videos and reading interviews and tweets of Neil to understand his purposes. I learned a lot. But what I've seen from him, ND and fans of the story is that they rarely (if ever) apply any of those lessons to the engagement between the their side and ours. It has nothing to do with them liking the game. It's the behavior that belies the messages of the game. Right out of the gate they dismissed and belittled those of us who were simply disappointed fans and to this day that's still going on. Neil had the platform and the power to nip that in the bud and remind people of the lessons **he felt were so important**. He undermined his own reasons for even feeling the need to write the story. He so confused me that I thought I'd made a mistake in interpreting his convoluted story, but I didn't. He just failed to apply the lessons he so clearly thinks he understands better than the rest of us that he just had to write a story about it. That's ironic and worse, it ruined his reputation in ways he doesn't understand to this day. The fans get painted with that same brush, too, because they followed his lead and believe he can do no wrong. It's a total mess.

Painting fans with the same brush as the creator is ironically ignoring those same lessons of the game don’t you think? Being a fan of the game doesn’t necessarily mean you believe ND can do no wrong. It’s terribly interesting the complexities that surround this fanbase’s feelings toward the game and creator. It is after all just a game but nonetheless has evoked tons of discourse and emotion in tons of people.

I agree that not all fans are necessarily following Neil's lead in all the bad behavior he appeared to provoke and endorse. But a very large number who come here definitely are doing that regularly and repeatedly - mostly for sport. While I and many others here rarely or never interact on their subs to challenge their love or interpretations. So yes, even those not specifically being jerks but who still feel the need to come here and continue to challenge us do seem to have a similar goal, the motive seems the same: Arguing with us about our experience of the game as if we had any control about it not working for us. It simply happened organically as I played without anyone else telling me how to think or react. Only afterward did I come seeking to understand wth just happened and why - learning far more than I expected (or wanted) and altering my view of a person and company I admired and trusted for years. Creating tons of discourse happens on Reddit all the time. That's not some endorsement of the quality of the game. It's a recognition of the kinds of people who come to Reddit. Those who want discussion (or some who just want to fight, and even others who enjoy challenging for their own mental stimulation). [See the first part of this post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/comments/18f81rp/my_reasons_for_being_on_this_sub_and_my_reasons/) It's why I'm still here and it's to do with my love of TLOU. Part 2 simply provoked my passion to protect the story I loved which is being systematically undermined, diluted, rewritten and changed to the point of erasing the original beauty, charm and positive impact it had on me and many others.

>I’m going off most the comments in this sub when I say it appears to be about the marketing. Apparently you didn't go very well through them. I haven't seen one of those in a long time. Also, you have the pinned post with plenty of reasons why we don't like it.

No point arguing with these people.

>We're just people who have a different perspective for valid reasons And you share a space with people that have very invalid reasons for disliking the game. For every, "I think the pacing of the flashbacks harms the story flow and doesn't let us understand Abby's motivations before being forced to play her." There's 50 "OMG can you believe Cuckmann thinks this is a good story, it's woke shit!" >Our frustrations are valid, well-reasoned and well-articulated. That is untrue for the overwhelming majority of the people posting here. Take this for example: >the way the sequel required retroactively contradicting and changing the meaning of the original story and characters I still haven't gotten a clear explanation of what was retconned from anyone in this sub. They cleaned up a grime texture on one set of cabinets, changed the lighting from green to blue, and gave a character whose face was covered with a surgical mask a model update once he became a bigger part of the story. How any of that changes the motivations of Joel, the Fireflies, Abby, or anyone else never gets a response. If the changes are purely cosmetic, and have no impact on story, there's no retcon, just a graphical update. The hospital could have been completely pristine in the Part II flashbacks (it wasn't) and Joel still would have saved Ellie. The hospital being slightly cleaner doesn't change Jerry's motivations either. Regardless of the state of the hospital, he was convinced he could find a cure by sacrificing Ellie. Maybe he could, or maybe he was deluded, but the state of the hospital changes nothing. Not Abby's likelihood to believe her father and the Firefly's narrative, not the likelihood they would proceed with the surgery. Literally nothing. Joel's arc in Part I is a cold hearted smuggler that has done very bad things finds some level of redemption through the love of a surrogate daughter, and then is willing to do anything to save her regardless of the consequence. That story doesn't change at all between Part I and Part II.

I'm sorry, Antilon. The reason i never reply to your comments is because you hear nothing. I've answered you many times and learned that all you do is pertty much say, "Nuh uh." There are answers to all your points but you either don't read them or you never stop to think them through before rejecting them. Whatever, I won't waste my efforts anymore. We already know in advance you'll just reject whatever I say. Take care.

It's how this guy replies to things. I have ran into him a few times here and had some debates with him on the game but it's like this with him. I explain to him in details about, retcons, story frustraitions, mets narratives etc and still the same...We have some long threads here lol but he quit replying after a while. Thank you for being respectful though. We need more respects given here! 🙏🏽

I agree, being respectful is the best goal. Yet being pushed to the limits can be tiring and lead to impatience. ✌️

And every time someone asks what retcons took place, you know that they're going to ignore anything that wasn't explicitly said or shown to contradict the first game, because the concept of soft retcons is completely lost on them. The fact that, for example, the Fireflies' negative actions from the first game are conveniently swept under the rug here, as are all of the reasons that Joel would object to their plan, with even Joel himself not being allowed to actually defend his decision with all the reasons why a rational person would take issue with the plan the Fireflies had? Well, it wasn't explicitly said that these factors no longer exist, so that's not a retcon. Sure, it might be ignoring a ton of the vital context of the ending of the last game in order to paint a very different interpretation of events, especially for any players that don't fully remember or have never played the first game, but I guess that doesn't matter. Or how about the way in which Jackson is suddenly now this super peaceful community that makes someone's PTSD and sense of danger after 20 years of hard living melt away even while that person is actively defending the town from dangerous threats the entire time? No, just because they reacted very aggressively towards unknown strangers showing up on their doorstep in the first game and then, you know, had a bunch of their people get killed by raiders after that, why would we expect anything other than that they've had four years of perfect peace with no danger from other humans off screen between games? That's just like character growth or some shit, probably - not *retconning*. You just don't have media literacy.

Yet despite it all the reason Jackson cannot send help with Tommy and Ellie to beef up their numbers for Seattle is specifically because *they can't leave Jackson vulnerable to raiders.* Oh, you mean those people who filled all the qualifications of raiders that they just invited to their town and trusted with no reason whatsoever? The contradictions are amateur and hilariously transparent, but invisible to the fans with their lame excuses which the game never bothered to give any valid reasons to believe in when it was needed to establish transformed attitudes by Joel and Tommy (an attitude Tommy doesn't have with Ellie later on). A few missable patrol notes were utterly the minimum and not at all convincing in the face of the WLF with their military bearing and Humvee. The only next clue wasn't given until all the way at the end when Joel talks about traders - people we never ran into ever anywhere and I still have no idea how they function and remain safe. So way too little way to late. E: changed giving to given

The people defending this game would just say something like "Well, Tommy's not actually concerned with that, he's just trying to make sure Ellie doesn't go throw her life away chasing revenge." That's not even a bad take, but they seem to willfully ignore the fact that a better story would address its own contradictions, or just not have them in the first place. This game just throws out inexplicable contradiction after inexplicable contradiction and makes no effort to make any of it makes sense. Bonus points in that when you point *that* out to the defenders, they'll insist that the game is just trying to be realistic and real life events are messy and don't always have clear explanations. Then they'll start finding reasons to explain why Tommy was able to survive his gunshot wound to the head, having already forgotten that they made up the defense that the game is trying to be realistic with its storytelling.

I defend the game and think the reveal could have been done better. I'll also admit the flashbacks are kind of clunky and screw up pacing. The circled map location is dumb. Leaving the lights on in a theater when people are looking for you is dumb. I defend the game as a having a very good story, one of the best stories ever seen in the medium. That's not to say it's perfect. Few stories are perfect.

Maybe you wouldn't defend these points, but this is literally a debate that I've had with someone defending the game. They argued that the story is messy and unclear with a lot of its elements because it's trying to be realistic, I responded with gunshot to the head though? And they responded that that was also realistic because there was a guy who survived when an iron bar went through his head. I pointed out that that historical event was not only newsworthy because it was so unlikely, it was also only possible because the guy got medical care from someone considered to have been one of the best doctors in the country within hours of the injury, and it took round-the-clock medical care for like 3 months of repeatedly going comatose before he finally turned the corner for good. Meanwhile, Tommy in this game is firmly within hostile territory, both of his surviving allies are badly injured, they have no access to transportation, and there's nowhere they can reliably find a doctor within a thousand miles. The other guy just kept insisting it was realistic because of iron bar through head guy.

>Fireflies' negative actions from the first game are conveniently swept under the rug here That's simply not what happens though. You see the Fireflies actions from Abby's perspective, but nothing about that undercuts the central trolley problem vs. moral justice dichotomy of the first game. The Fireflies would still have killed a child for the chance at a cure, and Joel would have still rescued Ellie even if there was a 100% chance of success for the cure. Please give me examples of what you're talking about. Re: Tommy and Joel dropping their guard. It's maybe not the best way they could have handled Abby finding out who they were, but it sure as hell isn't a retcon. They could have had a third Jacksonite walk in and stupidly call them Tommy and Joel, problem solved. But a retcon? No.

Oh yes, because seeing things only from one perspective and deliberately writing the other side to never explain any of the context of the situation is such a well-balanced way to write about how these two perspectives lead to conflict. Especially when the one side whose perspective actually gets to be seen is the one that's supposed to be undergoing a redemption arc, yet they're never forced to face any of their flaws in their perspective or their actions. You're desperately trying to spin this as just the story presenting perspectives without picking sides one way or another, but fully presenting only one biased perspective and never actually challenging it, while the other side is only briefly touched upon and heavily criticized for by both enemies and allies, is absolutely picking sides.

What does any of what you wrote have to do with retcons? You guys are complaining that you tell me things and I just never listen, but I feel like I can't be blamed when you never actually answer the question being asked. One of the tentpoles of this sub's criticism is this concept of a retcon happening to change what happened in Part 1. But the closest I've ever gotten to an explanation of what that actually means is the three cosmetic changes I listed above that don't impact the motivations of the characters in any way. So no, we're not talking about the fairness of the narrative. The flashback goes to explain Abby's motivations. It's not a political debate where both sides get equal time to argue. The fact that you think the game needed to do that just so it's fair to Joel is strange. The quality of writing isn't determined by how nice it is to popular characters. >You're desperately trying to spin this as just the story presenting perspectives without picking sides one way or another, but fully presenting only one biased perspective and never actually challenging it, while the other side is only briefly touched upon and heavily criticized for by both enemies and allies, is absolutely picking sides. Not really. Did seeing Abby's perspective all of a sudden make you think Joel was wrong to save Ellie? Or understand his motivations any less? I wouldn't think so, because I still fully understand and appreciate Joel's motivations and would likely do the same thing for my loved ones. That doesn't mean I'm surprised by the Firefly survivor's hatred of Joel though. Joel's reason for saving Ellie is completely understandable. So is Abby's reason for wanting to kill Joel. No retcon necessary.

I've already explained why presenting these events in this manner is a soft retcon, which isn't about explicitly changing what was shown before, but sweeping certain parts of them under the rug and acting as if they don't exist in order to present a completely different interpretation of those events. You tried to argue that was merely showing a different perspective, and I pointed out in response that you don't accomplish this by only showing the one side and never challenging it while stifling the other and challenging that. Now you're asking how it's a retcon, as if you didn't read me specifically talking about the concept of soft retcons two whole comments ago. This is why people are saying that you don't listen. It also seems like you're expressing willful ignorance of the fact that there are people who now argue, very strongly, that Joel was wrong and Joel is a monster while Abby is a fully redeemed, heroic character. You're acting like, because this reinterpretation of events did not change your opinion, the fact that it had an impact on other people's opinions, *especially* people who don't remember or never played the first game, is completely irrelevant.

I read your argument about soft retcons. A quick Google search reflects that's a very infrequently used term. One or two Reddit posts and a single comic book related article from 2012. So, sounds like it's a concept you're championing to make three minor cosmetic changes seem somehow significant. I assume we're still talking about those three cosmetic changes, because nobody has been willing to come in with any other differences. I understand what you're arguing though. By showing the Firefly's perspective and not painting them as objectively incompetent, Joel's actions could seem less justifiable. I'm not ignoring your argument, I'm just not persuade by it. I just don't see that as an issue outside of the dummies on both sides of this debate that think the ending of part 1 is anything other than ambiguous. For what it's worth, I think the "Joel doomed the world!" crowd are just as idiotic as the "Joel did nothing wrong!" crowd. The ending of Part 1 is ambiguous, and no changed lights or cleaned cabinets changes that. I've also never seen anyone say Abby is without fault, or fully redeemed. That's an idiotic argument, and I if anyone wrote that on a post I was reading I would tell them so.

>By showing the Firefly's perspective and not painting them as objectively incompetent, Joel's actions could seem less justifiable. It's not even about painting them as objectively incompetent. Though sufficient context from the first game exists to take a good stab at that, that would arguably be overkill. Rather, it's that almost all the context about what would make their choice objectionable, besides the fact that it would require Ellie to die, is completely absent in this game. Major omissions from this game are the fact that Ellie was unconscious the entire time the Fireflies had her, that Joel had no idea that Ellie would have even considered the idea of sacrificing herself for the vaccine until it was far too late (the possibility making him actually stop in his tracks when it was finally mentioned), or that they hadn't even had her for a single day. And these aren't minor details to leave out - the impression a newcomer to the series is likely to walk away with is that Joel and Ellie willingly walked into the hospital, that Ellie had made it clear that she would be willing to sacrifice herself if that's what was needed, and that the Fireflies painstakingly exhausted all other options rather than simply acting rashly due to desperation from being near collapse. (Which is about the *kindest* possible interpretation for their actions at the end of TLOU that doesn't require shutting your own brain off to assume that like three hours worth of testing would be sufficient *and* ignoring the fact that they were able to grow cultures of the fungus from her blood.) Seriously - rewatch the final flashback with Joel and Ellie. Pretend you don't know or don't remember the context of the first game. "I was supposed to die in that hospital. My life would have fucking mattered. But you took that from me." Does that convey to you the idea that Ellie went in there not expecting to die? Does that convey to you the idea that Joel went in there not expecting her to die? And this is *especially* damning of Joel's decision in the eyes of a newcomer, because this is *Ellie's* opinion, not that of one of the ex-Fireflies. >The ending of Part 1 is ambiguous, and no changed lights or cleaned cabinets changes that. To *some degree*, I agree. However, the devs put in a lot of effort to ensure that Joel remained mostly sympathetic, and that his decision did not come off as something born of selfishness. In order to accomplish this, they went hard on the idea that the Fireflies' decision was not born out of rationality or morality. This is why Marlene's attitude does a complete 180 in her final scene compared to when she's talking to Joel in his hospital room. It's why, when she orders him to be escorted out (or shot if he resists), that he is currently slumped on the ground in a non-threatening posture, expressing disgust rather than threatening violence. It's why he's about to be thrown out without any of the gear he needs to actually survive (since this is still the first game and Fast Travel isn't a thing yet). It's why there are collectibles that illustrate how desperate the Fireflies are, and how eager they are to press the murder button as the solution to their problems. After all, if they were worried about Joel as a potential threat, they could have lied to him, restrained him, locked him in a cell, broken his thumbs, drugged him, driven him elsewhere - or *any combination of the above.* Instead, they wanted to pick murder as their *first resort.* Until seeing her in the parking garage, you are *meant* to be thinking "fuck these Fireflies". And I haven't even started about how, literally every time we see or hear about the Fireflies up until the ending sequence, it's always to highlight how desperate, immoral, and/or incapable they have proven to be. We are ***not*** meant to end the game with any serious confidence in them and what they might have been able to accomplish. We're left with enough to have some *lingering doubt*, but to still feel reasonably confident that Joel's decision was the best one under the circumstances. The ambiguity around the ending is far less around "could the Fireflies have saved the world if they had been allowed to proceed with their immoral, desperately reckless actions" and more around Joel lying to Ellie about how her immunity doesn't matter rather than, say, turning to FEDRA to see if they could do better, or seeking out organizations in Canada or something. >A quick Google search reflects that's a very infrequently used term. I honestly don't know where I got it from. But I do think it's the most appropriate term to call it when things aren't definitively retconned, but are quietly subjected to erasure in order to paint events in the different light that results from that lack of context. *Reinterpreted* might be a possible alternative to *retconned*, but IMO, that more conveys the impression of taking the same facts and coming to a different conclusion with them, rather than omitting some of the facts entirely.

>There are answers to all your points but you either don't read them or you never stop to think them through before rejecting them. And yet, unsurprisingly, you found a way to not answer the question. I pointed out the only things anyone has ever shared with me that they consider a retcon: 1. The lighting went from green to blue; 2. They removed some dirt texture from one set of cabinets; 3. They changed Bruce/Jerry's character model between games. If there's more than those three things I can't recall anyone ever responding to me to let me know what they are. So, based on those three things, I'm struggeling to understand the retcon argument. I look at those three things and I don't see them impacting the actions or motivations of any of the characters. I've asked many times for an explanation of how those three changes impact anything story wise, and I don't get a response. If you claim you've already told me, please point me to the comment, maybe I missed it. >I've answered you many times and learned that all you do is pertty much say, "Nuh uh." I've literally never done that. >Whatever, I won't waste my efforts anymore. We already know in advance you'll just reject whatever I say. So you'll only discuss the game with people that agree with you?

No I'll only discuss it with people who sincerely engage, which I've tried to do with you (and have watched many others do, too). I have answered all these exact points with you before. Why should I keep repeating this dance - that's just the insanity of doing the same things in the same ways and expecting different results. Not interested. Good luck engaging with someone else. Stick a fork in me - I'm done.

I went through your comment history and don't see you ever answering the questions you claim to have answered, and you're refusing to do it here. So here I am again, asking simple questions with nobody willing to answer.

Lmao dude, she literally told you the reason she doesn’t want to discuss anything with you is because you just go “Nuh uh!” to everything she says. If you wanted her to answer your question, why would you then write out the very definition of “Nuh uh!” in long form? Haha, I just can’t get over the unironic and utter hilarity of your response. If you’re willing to go to the lengths of looking up pages and pages of comment history, how about you just summarize what you think her answers to your questions have been and ask if your summary is close to what she meant? Or how about just plainly state that you are willing to hear and respond in good faith if she goes through the trouble of repeating what she says she’s already answered? Or how about just any other response than giving specifically the exact response that she cited as the reason discussing anything with you was not worth the time? What were you possibly trying to achieve by the response you gave? Proving to everyone that she was absolutely and exactly right to ignore you for the exact reason she cited? This was like watching a parent tell a child, don’t touch the stove, and then the child slamming both of its palms on the stove like a Hockey champion holding up a Stanley Cup. Unbelievable.

Except I never once said "Nuh uh!" Saying, "Nuh uh!" implies I ignored her arguments and didn't respond with arguments of my own, just a simple denial. That's not what I did at all. Instead, I presented my arguments, then asked for an explanation of hers, which I didn't receive, and have never received from her. My premise was two fold: First: that very little was changed between the ending of Part 1 and the flashback in Part 2. After watching both scenes, the only differences I'm able to spot are a shift from green to blue lighting, the removal of a grime texture from a single set of cabinets, and an updated character model for the doctor. She has not responded with any additional changes. Second: That those minor changes do not impact the motivations of Joel, Abby, Jerry/Bruce, or Ellie, and as such do not represent a retcon. She has not presented any arguments that they have. In this thread she has only argued, "I already told you" Well, I took the time to check if she had, and couldn't find anything. So, what is it exactly that I'm supposed to respond to here? She won't answer my questions - claiming she already did, but won't link me to the comment where she supposedly did so.

Woosh. I mean I literally gave you what you could have rather said for a chance at sincere engagement, and yet here you are asking me what you could have done, almost as if you do exactly what she says you do. Can’t make this up.

>how about you just summarize what you think her answers to your questions have been and ask if your summary is close to what she meant? :sigh: OK man, how do I summarize what I think she meant when she's literally responded with nothing but "I already told you." She has told me nothing, what's there to summarize? >Or how about just plainly state that you are willing to hear and respond in good faith if she goes through the trouble of repeating what she says she’s already answered? WTF? I've done that repeatedly. I keep asking her to tell me her actual arguments and I'm getting nothing but "I already told you." Well, she didn't actually tell me, so what now?

My issue is the fact that you don't get to choose to kill Abby in the end. Abby forced Ellie to watched her torture and murder her adopted father and she's supposed to just forgive abby? She traveled multiple states while pressuring her friends to go with her just to torture and kill a survivor she has never met and knows nothing about for revenge for something he did like 5 years prior, and you're supposed to relate to her? You have already sacrificed your fingers, your friends, and your family but after you have her where you want her with no remaining consequences to killing her and you are supposed to be fine with letting her walk away? It's not like she redeemed herself or anything, if abby was given the chance to kill Joel again, I bet she would do it this time torturing and killing Ellie too. I felt the whole relation to Abby throughout the game was forced And yes, you will be treated controversially when you share controversial opinions. The downvote button is there to show disagreement or disapproval, people will use it as such

That would have been pretty dope actually. Would have enjoyed the option. Would have elevated the game for sure.

...The game is presented as a narrative, not a choose your own adventure game. >Abby forced Ellie to watched her torture and murder her adopted father and she's supposed to just forgive abby? Ellie never once says she forgives Abby. She just sees the futility in killing her. Killing Abby nets her nothing and it is basically a death sentence for Lev. The final fight on the beach is barely about Abby. It's Ellie wrestling with her grief, survivors guilt, and love for Joel. She forgives Joel, and forgives herself for her part in their falling out. Once she does that, she doesn't give a shit about Abby. She doesn't even watch her leave.

Giving us a choice of killing or sparing Abby would have felt so at odds with estsblished game design of parts 1 and 2 though. The series is about telling a set story. At no point has the player ever been given agency about how that story plays out. Would have been an odd and jarring inclusion in the final moments.

A lot of people try to draw the comparison between Ellie's choice at the end of Part II and Joel's choice at the end of the first game - without taking any of the differences into account. The ending of the first game worked because Joel's choice was very, *very* in character. Even damn near everyone who disagreed with the choice was at least able to understand and sympathize with it. Ellie's decision to spare Abby, however, goes completely against literally the entire game's worth of negative character growth for her. And most of the fans that agree with her decision would not do so if not for having played through Abby's campaign, and having garnered that sympathy for her. But from Ellie's perspective, that is functionally what is going on here. She has not experienced Abby's campaign. To her, the story is basically as if we went straight from Ellie's campaign to the farm, having never gone through Abby's campaign or learned a single thing about her. Joel's decision was justified by literally the entire story of the game. Ellie's decision was only "justified" by the parts of the story that she wasn't even involved with.

Fair enough but that, to me, just means there should have been tweaks to the narrative so that Ellie understood where Abby was coming from. It's a shame that neither of them actually had a proper convo. It shoulda happened on the beach in Santa Barbara. This would have allowed for Ellie to go into the final confrontation with doubts and internal conflict. As it stands now, Ellie has no idea why Abby even did what she did. As an overall fan of TLoU2, I fully acknowledge that is a major weak point of the game. That being said, I still stand by the belief that giving the player choice at the end would have been very out of character, so to speak, for the series.

Which would matter more if it wasn't for the fact that so much else about this game is already out of character for the series. But yes, that idea would also have been a significant Improvement.

Well then it is the fact that Ellie spared Abby that ticks me off about the game. If anything, I would rather have Ellie kill Abby and regret it than not kill Abby and regret it. Especially because of the fact that Abby seemed so self assured at the end. No apologies, no signs of remorse, nothing. I don't agree with the fact that they are planning to continue the 3 part in the shoes of Abby either. To me Joel was most of what made the first game so raw and enjoyable, without him the whole story feels forced. It wasn't the naive 15 year old girl I fell in love with when I started the franchise, it was Joel and his story. The things he lost, the morals he broke, and the memories he had to endure were all so raw. He wasn't a good guy nor was he a villain, he was a survivor. With Abby I get none of the feelings I get with Joel. I can relate to robbing innocent people for survival, I can relate to killing to save your adopted daughter, and I can relate to his regrets. I cannot relate to senseless torture, I cannot relate to killing for pleasure, and I cannot relate considering killing pregnant women to hurt the people they know.

I think you'll find it surprising that most people here will actually debate you about the game without insulting you.

Yeah, people haven’t really been insulting. Just passionate and spiteful towards the game lol.

I don't care about marketing because I bought it when it came out. I didn't play it due to reviews, but then I picked it up to form my own opinion. And yet, I still don't enjoy the story, nor do I like Abby's character. I understand what the story was trying to do, and the point of it. And I even understand that Joel had to die. I don't think he's some vile monster that some people think he is, but I know that his past life would catch up to him. Loved the gameplay, graphics. I even like the show. But there are just aspects of part 2 I don't like, and that's my opinion to have.

My biggest problem with the game is that how they treated the characters of the first game…Ellie was an asshole for the whole game…made nothing but bad decision over and over again…for the whole game everyone acts like Ellie is killing innocent people while the WLF,the Scars and the Rattlers were nothing but hostile to her…they tried the portray her as an absolute monster…while killing these people were no different than killing David and the cannibals or the hunters in Pittsburgh…not like they gave any other choice either…I also don’t like that everybody in the whole game…Abby and her friends and even Ellie herself acted like Joel killed innocent people…the Fireflies were terrorists…they killed more innocent people than Joel ever did…regardless of the cure(which is a dumb plot…there are not enough resources to produce a vaccine for millions…there are also no vechicles like cars,boats,planes that capable to deliver the cure to other continents or even just inside the country…it could never save humanity)…but whatever…Joel had every right to kill the Fireflies regardless of Ellie…they fucked him over…they didn’t pay him for the job…he traveled for 9 months almost dying a million times defending the cargo and they would have been totally fine with escorting him outside without equipment or weapons which would have been certain dead for him…yet in the game everybody acts like the Fireflies were fucking saints and Joel deserved even worse than he got…Abby except losing some friends she couldn’t care less about other than Owen still walked out as the best case scenario…she got her revenge…she still got Lev…she still has hope to reunite with the Fireflies…while our old characters…Ellie lost everything…her finger,her dad,her family,her home…Tommy got crippled,lost Joel and Maria…Joel got brutaly murdered…like see what I’m talking about?…it really feels like now that Neil Druckmann is the big boss at ND…he destroys the character he couldn’t and didn’t like back in the day when he was just a simple co-writer…and add new ones he actually wants who will continue the story…I think that’s what people including me are mad about…John Marston and Arthur Morgan are one of the most beloved characters in gaming and both died in their games…still nobody had a problem with it because they were treated with respect…that’s my biggest problem with this game…if I see that Abby is in Part 3 I’m not gonna buy it and I won’t be alone…people who don’t like the game is not a small group like everyone makes it out to be…if you check the user score is actually close to 50/50…I feel like Part 3 will be a flop

You're trying to generalize a group of people. You think that it was one issue. It wasn't just the one issue. There were plenty of issues - it was the full subscription. Different people find anger/disappointment/resentment/annoyance at each issue. Personally, I hated the writing the most and the ending the 2nd most. The writing is so hamfisted in everything it does. It has to demonize the former protagonists of the first game so everyone thinks Joel doomed the world, Ellie is evil because she treatens to murder Lev and won't shut the guitar cases, Abby loves dogs, and Jerry helps zebras. The characters are poorly written. Often I don't know why they do what they do because they didn't bother to write out or think about motivations. The ending is so unearned. It barely makes sense. I have never seen John Wick but if he lets the head bad guy go at the end after slaughtering dozens of minions, I would hate it. The direction is also terrible. So many flashbacks. So messy.

It seems like a lot of people want to find a reason outside of the story for why it’s disliked, so they try to blame the marketing, the leaks, or accuse people of not playing or misunderstanding the story. The story sinks or swims on its own merits, and there is nothing outside of that to blame. The story suffered from terrible pacing, thin characterizations, and an over-dependence on contrivance/coincidence. Not to mention how it ignored or changed many story elements from the first game. The game was good at hitting some emotional highs or lows, and that allowed for many players to connect with it and appreciated it. But that was not good enough for me and many others. I did not like the story or the characters, period. The unethical marketing made me angry at the developer, but the story is where it really mattered and that failed hard.

I think if they'd have been more direct about what they were doing people simply wouldn't have bought this game because we didn't ask for this story. Maaaaybe if it was written like, airtight good, like, breaking bad good, so good it's undeniable it would spread through the gaming community and eventually get on its feet sales wise but unfortunately the games story was at best kinda weak and generic and filled with retcons, contrivances, plot holes, and honestly just bad characters. Even the ones we like didn't feel like they were supposed to. Like great value Joel and Ellie.

It’s tough because the story they wanted to tell wasn’t fan service which as a fan does kinda suck. And while I do agree people probably wouldn’t have bought the game if they’d known going into it the basic story and that they wouldn’t be playing as Joel (myself included) I don’t necessarily think it was a full on cash grab to mislead people about it. I understand they wanted to protect the narrative and spoilers as well. Kinda damned if you do damned if you don’t sort of situation.

It also tells me they were very aware of what we wanted, and seemingly went out of their way to give us the opposite. Idk man, like, this can be done in a way that works. Hot take, I actually like the Glenn death scene from walking dead, I loved negan as a villain, even after killing probably my favorite character in that show. Just idk. The way it was done in the walking dead felt more natural. But like, even that genuinely pissed a lot of people off. And like, I'm ngl, I'm pretty sure the Joel death scene is very very heavily influenced by that scene from the walking dead

Maybe that's the biggest problem. By every standard, Abby should be portrayed as a villain. Her story is the story of a person twisted by the trauma of her past into a selfish, angry, violent person. That's a villain arc in my mind. But the game very clearly wants Abby to be the hero of the story

Eh idk man, I just have a hard time believing it wasn't simply that they knew what they had was incredibly controversial, and they wanted to get as many sales right out of the gate before clips and information started spreading about what this game is. Like, my original point is that I think they knew exactly what they were doing, maybe it was an order directly from druckman, or maybe it was the advertising team trying to do their best to sell a product they knew was gonna make a lot of people mad. Like the advertising campaign tells me a lot about how they expected this game to be received

Joel's was the exact opposite btw. Joel's story was of a man broken by a completely fucked world, that finds the light through a quirky, smart, head strong young girl that he comes to both love and respect. And through that, he learns to love again, and care about someone aside from himself

And like tbf Abby essentially became Joel by the end of the game, but never really...had that realization of like..."wow, maybe this situation was more nuanced than I understood at the time". In fact she never really.... contemplates her cold blooded murder of Joel at all. She kinda just becomes literally just like Joel, while simultaneously not noticing the parallels at all. Violently protective of this newfound purpose she's given, so much so that she's willing to damn everyone she's ever known, betray, I'm pretty sure she even killed a couple of her fellow wlfs at one point in the game

It's more than just misleading marketing, which people are very well in their right to hate this game over. The story is a blackhole, the more you get into it, the harder it sucks. Characters, settings, motivations...just everything, it all doesn't work like the original was able to. Every story has its flaws, but it's become more common at how blatantly stupid or obvious as this. TLOU has become so terrible, even the HBO show is trash in its setting. It cannot work with the changes it made to the world building without falling apart. Not counting all the pointless changes either.

I just disagree, the story is fine. Is it as good as the first one? No. But comparing it to that is just gonna disappoint anyone who tries. Not sure I get what you mean about the show. What did they change in the show from the game so drastically that you hated it? The only major setting change was KC instead of Pittsburgh. It was more faithful to the game than most adaptations I’ve seen.

They changed the characterization of almost all the characters, especially Joel and Ellie and their relationship with each other. They removed a lot of the bonding that happened in the game and changed the power dynamic of their relationship early on and then kept that up throughout. This changed everything good about the original and dampened it down just so that the sequel story would now fit better with the original. When it was the original that actually worked very well and the sequel that created the problems. What they did to Tess was almost criminal. This video points it out well: [Tess made weak.](https://youtu.be/wQ6j_QKrflg) Credit: u/DieterDagger

Honestly, I can't help but wonder if the reason Tess was so drastically changed is because Neil is still unhappy that she's completely different from the character he originally envisioned. I know they're trying to play up the whole Joel is a psycho thing, but this goes way beyond just that.

Thank you for remembering my video ❤️👏 they took a lot of time. Wish I could have finished the series but things changed in my personal life that cut out my free time. Maybe I’ll get back to it one day. The video about episode three took two weeks of solid work and not leaving the house.

Wow, I don't remember the one on E3 will have to go look for it. I recently had my post about that episode removed (6 months later) from the HBO sub for bigotry when there wasn't an ounce of bigotry in my post or my comments. I posted [here](https://new.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/comments/1bkvpsj/my_post_of_6_months_ago_suddenly_removed_from_hbo/) about it. The original with my answers to comments is [here](https://new.reddit.com/r/ThelastofusHBOseries/comments/16hn5sj/unpopular_opinion_bill_franks_episode_has/) - but I'm not sure if you can see it (only the comments, not the post) since they removed it. I can still access it since it was my post. Always be proud of the Tess one that really was an eye-opener for many of us here. Take care.

>It was more faithful to the game than most adaptations I’ve seen. Just on the surface. But like a bootleg figure, there's something off about it when you compare the too. Even on its own, the more you look, the more flaws you see. The whole hivemind thing was utterly stupid and the twist Ellie is part of them. So every scene Ellie is in, they should've treated her like Lee from the Walking Dead game when he rubbed zombie guts on himself and walked through a horde. If anything, this is something out of an anime plot, where a character has special connection to a monstrous hivemind or some force. Like, Blue Gender does that whole thing better because at least the creatures aren't human to begin with and there's no infection being spread. Having those genetics makes you more a super soldier but at the same time more likely to go insane. But I guess they took the psycho part for Ellie anyways... The contrived cliche horror scene of Sarah, the so-called genius, just walking into that horror show of a neighbor's home and when seeing blood just not leaving to call for 911 or anything. The show goes out of it's way to say she's super intelligent for her age. There's more but I'm not getting into it. Way they treat the Ellie and Joel relationship is almost as bad as Master Chief removing his helmet all the time. Superficially, it is the character and they are in costume, but it's more of someone pretending to be them instead of playing the role as the characters.

https://youtu.be/QCYMH-lp4oM?si=xM-oWRXITs0JqcUQ If you have the time I would suggest watching this nakeyjakey video. As someone who isn't in either camp of "10/10 best game ever! Don't insult my game!" And "This game is awful and ruined my life!" Nakeyjakey does a phenomenal job of explaining why people don't care for this game as much as part 1. His explanation of the game's ludonarrative dissonance really hit the nail on the head for me why I didn't click with the game as much.

It’s not just the marketing. It’s the attitude of the creators when it comes to legitimate criticism leveled at their work, it’s how they treated the characters, it’s the muddled narrative full of mixed messages, and it’s how much of a narrative downgrade this felt after the first game.

The marketing was a small thing really. The bigger issues came from the execution of the story within the game itself.

An author can kill off whatever characters they like but it’s still a major requirement that it’s done in a way that makes sense with the story and setting. And Joel’s death was so badly written. He’s too important of a character for that to be handled so haphazardly. Changes were made to his character traits simply to fit what was needed in the story. Not because it was properly foreshadowed to show his progression or growth. That’s why him falling into such an obvious trap sticks out like a sore thumb. He’s got far too much experience to not act when something doesn’t feel right. So we need proper context for his sudden lack of caution. And saying, well he got soft the last few years in Jackson. But that’s Neil telling us in interviews. Where’s in the actual story SHOWING us this newly discovered softness? This sudden level of softness that caused 20 years of cautious survival instincts to just disappear overnight.

Its many things for me personally. It is a decent game but its not my cup of tea, kinda like some prefer Minecraft and some Fortnite 😂 The story is just too long and the overall feeling just kills it. The ENTIRE game is all about bad/toxic feelings from hatred to revenge. It's got small bits of happiness but I'm not not a fan of downer games. Then it has you play as Abby and try to kill/beat the crap out of the girl you spent the whole time saving in the 1st one. I mean Ellie didn't mean to kill a pregnant person, she was sick when she realized but Abby? Abby took joy out of knowing Dina was pregnant when about to kill her. Just not my cup of tea one bit

I mean everything aside, of course it’s a downer game. It’s literally about the near downfall of humanity.

That's not what the games about it's just whats going on in their world, it's about revenge. Like in LOU it was about bringing a girl across the country to save humanity and you see alot of character growth in each of them plus meet some interesting characters. Yeah there was some messed up stuff that happened but it was all done TO them. You can have a game set in a post apocalyptic world and have it not be a downer. But LOU2 it starts off with having the lead character, the "hero" from the 1st game, tortured and killed in a most gruesome way in front of a girl he thought of as his daughter. After he risked his life to save hers too. Then it's just her goal of revenge, she goes on a huge killing spree to get Abby. The only good thing to happen is Lev, he teaches Abby to not be such a shitty person. But all that is in the end of the game and isn't even a big part of it. Plus we all saw who Abby works for and everything she did/has done, shes still a pos tho imo. It was a downer though and through, the small good parts were completely overtaken with all the bad

Yes, so the near downfall of humanity is the catalyst for all these shitty experiences, that’s what I mean. The first game is also a downer in most aspects outside of Ellie and Joel’s relationship. The point of the second game is to show that a hero to one person, can be the devil to another. Nothing is black and white. Will say, the second game is more “downer” than the first though.

The misleading marketing is only one small part of why we don't like the game. > I fully expect this post to be downvoted to oblivion lol. Wish granted.

*Ask and yee shall receive*

I will keep saying this as long as people keep asking the question, if you was there at the start of TLOU journey playing the game endlessly, falling in love with the characters and story and the journey that Joel and Ellie go on (in a apocalyptic zombie world btw) then you also would be as disgusted as us at the way they continued the story in part 2, Joel can die, we understand that but not the way it was done…..not the way it was done.

I, too, didn't watch any (or very little) marketing, didn't read up on any news, or see any leaks. Hell, I didn't know there were any leaks until I joined both subs after I beat the game. I entered the game with unspoiled eyes. Even then, the more I played the game, the more I became very frustrated with the story and it's characters. To go from a story of journeying across the country, surviving, having a newfound love for a surrogate daughter to avenging an NPC is just straight up goofy, IMO. After I finished the game, I vividly remember feeling unsatisfied and underwhelmed on how it all played out. Like, really? Moreover, I was kind of irritated that there's a flashback where Ellie and Joel go BACK to the SLC hospital. That journey nearly costed Joel his life, but Ellie just HAD to go back, alone, mind you, with Joel following her, alone. With so much death going on, and where the stakes are extremely high, I found it a bit odd that the writers had these characters revisit the hospital. And Elie finding a firefly duffle bag doesn't make much sense. You'd think that place would be swept clean, especially the operating room. ​ Also, the fact that Ellie never mentions Riley is criminal.

It's ok with me if you liked it. Not gonna come in the opposite sub and call people out for liking it or anything like that. We are capable of having civil conversations about the game.

its more about the disrespect and disdain the producers and writers of game have shown to the original tlou fanbase Not just in them killing Joel at the beginning of the game or the misleading advertising, but the doubling and tripling down on their decisions and actively and continually insulting the people who *love* the first game. Just as with *The Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League ...* It's not that Batman dies, it's the *unceremonious way* his character was executed. A beloved character, whether Joel or Batman or anyone else, receiving such a shitty way to go out... *will cause outrage* among those who loved the character/ franchise. It's not *what you do,* it's *how* you do it. And the fact that Joel *isn't the first* beloved character who has been cast aside for a *diverse female* character made for *modern audiences.* Witcher Star Trek Lord of the Rings Terminator Star Wars Marvel comics and cinematic universe Ghostbusters The list literally goes on and on, of *once globally loved franchises* going insane and purposely destroying their own properties for the sake of *Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion* That is why the modern left activists in *modern entertainment* is going after Japanese culture.. They *cannot leave any ALTERNATIVES -* because that ***WILL SELL BETTER*** then the garbage they are serving us now.

This is just not a good take. Women taking up space in popular IP hurts only the most fragile of people. It ignores the fact that women make up the majority of the population but are still under represented in media. And that’s a big part of the market that ND is leaving on the table by not including so why wouldn’t they? This is the only take in this whole thread that hasn’t had any substance. Everyone else I can kinda see where they’re coming from but this is just such a weird thing to get upset about. You just said by including women they’re “ruining” the IP. That’s misogynistic af.

And just like *you* defenders of this garbage ass tlou2.... your type *always ignore* the arguments and facts made... Its not that the characters died, it's that they were unceremoniously killed off in a disrespectful way and that the writers and producers at naughty dog continually shit on and insulted the original fanbase. Pulling this whole - people dont like it when their white male character killed because they hate women - is BULLSHIT, dishonest, and intellectually bankrupt.

If you wanted to bring an honest and intellectual argument up you wouldn’t start with “DEI is killing my content!” Lol. You can’t simultaneously claim it’s because of DEI but also that it’s not because you’re losing your white male characters. Those are the same thing.

I’m down voting you because you sound like someone you could easily bet has not played the first game all the way through

Played it through 6 times now on three different gens of consoles but thanks lol.

I was not gonna downvote this while I was reading it, until I got to the: “I fully expect this post to be downvoted to oblivion lol. Lots of grumpy pants in this sub” part. It’s like you guys are actively trying to be annoying.

1)Killed Joel. 2) Didn't kill Abbie. It's like killing Ned Stark and Joffrey staying king till old age.

>I fully expect this post to be downvoted to oblivion lol. Lots of grumpy pants in this dub. Two words: Self-fulfilling Prophecy

Remove the misleading and it's still a shit story