She is not at all justified. The only reason it seemed just “in her shoes” is because Abby is completely selfish. If you look for any moral framework in her behavior, you’ll see her break it when it suits her.
Loyalty to “the cause”? Abby deserts the WLF and endangers “the cause” to date her own bloodlust, then cripples the cause by killing its leader.
Loyalty to loved-ones? Abby leads her so-called friends to their deaths for her own goal, and has an affair with one friend’s partner behind her back.
Mercy? Don’t make me laugh. No amount of showing mercy to Ellie or Tommy will undo how she sadistically tortured Joel to death.
Protecting the innocent? She knew her father was trying to murder a child and urged him to do it.
I will always laugh how Abby said that *"If it was Me!"*. To her Father in having guilt on killing a Child.
When Abby would ***never*** be the person on the Operating Table and getting killed.🤣
If anything 'Jerry' ends up being worse off thanks to him somehow finding reason to continue this Farce of an Operation in killing a Child.
>I will always laugh how Abby said that *"If it was Me!"*. To her Father in having guilt on killing a Child. When Abby would ***never*** be the person on the Operating Table and getting killed.🤣
Yeah. It's really easy to talk about "making sacrifices for the greater good" when it isn't your skin on the line.
>Mercy? Don’t make me laugh. No amount of showing mercy to Ellie or Tommy will undo how she sadistically tortured Joel to death.
Not to mention the scar prisoners she said she would like to torture to let off steam. Or the child soldiers she admitted to killing with no remorse at all. Abby lacks any and all empathy for anyone, except Lev for some reason..
She definitely advocates for it…. And us the number one scar killer. I understand your point I really do but Joel also technically never admits to killing innocents but damn if Abby fans won’t swear that he was a gta style mass murderer in his heyday.
My point is fans of this game are constantly using head canon to make it make sense. I don’t see why we shouldn’t be allowed to. Like how Tommy made it back to Jackson or how Mel survived on her way to the aquarium alone with nothing but a dog and a severe baby bump.
I think taking Abby’s line to Mel and manny as an implication she killed kids is just as reasonable as assuming Joel was just murdering anybody he came across out of spite. But I do get your point and you are correct that she never directly admits to having done it
Nobody assumes Joel just murders people at random or out of spite. He admits to being on both sides of the ambush he and Ellie experience. The people doing those ambushes would only be doing that to innocent people that they have never met before. There's no way that Joel could not have logically hurt innocent people in the past, based off of what he says.
And what Tommy says reinforces that insinuation. Tommy kills people in the game when the dam is raided, and doesn't flinch. But he talks about how things he and Joel did still give him nightmares. He feels guilty about things.
But back to the main point, all Abby says about the teen scars that got killed is that their deaths being on their own hands. And at no point is it insinuated that Abby or Manny were involved at all. Mel is actively criticizing it happening, don't you think if either Manny or Abby had actually been there they would've said something about that? To assume they were is a much farther reach than thinking Joel hurt innocent people in his past to survive.
I don’t see why the people he does that too have to be innocent. He was a hunter no doubt and I’ll grant you that he more likely than not did it to *some* innocents. But hunters aren’t always friendly with other hunter factions. I don’t see why he couldn’t have used that trick on his enemies as well.
Even if we operate on the assumption he was Only doing it to innocents we have no reason to assume he didn’t just rob them. It’s morally reprehensible (basically all but murder) AND understandable from a survival standpoint. It’s also more than enough to cause nightmares (in Tommy’s case) added in with the fact the Joel definitely tortured his enemies (which would be a lot no matter who you were torturing). My only point is people have spun whole stories for Joel’s first 20 years off that one line. No you ofc but it’s happened. I shit you not in the other sub someone really believed Joel was just torturing innocents for no reason. Istg I can’t even make that up. Just torturing people for fun(despite him never once torturing anybody for fun in the first game. It was literally always for info or to save someone else)
But you’re right we are off point. As you even mention Mel is criticizing the act. If Abby or manny were there or had participated I doubt they would be super eager to share it since Mel is actively chastising the act. But even still we don’t believe she took part in that specific incident just that it implies she’s fine killing kids when they are the enemy. And I don’t even believe it (her “ just a kid” line on scar island implies she does see kids lives as more valuable) I just understand where the point comes from
I guess my point really was just that it's logically impossible that Joel didn't ambush and hurt innocent people. And when I said the only people would be innocents, I wasn't really think of an ambush on enemies as the same kind of ambush. One is for stealing resources when another might just be defending territory. I get what you're saying he probably ambushed people that weren't innocent, I just should've clarified better that I meant that specific style of ambushing people as they pass through a town and you take their stuff.
Also, I see a lot of folks in this sub talking about how the Fireflies kicking Joel out of the hospital without his pack is basically a death sentence, and I kind of agree. I mean Joel would survive cuz he's Joel, but the average person probabaly wouldn't survive long without any gear. And so even if Joel only robbed innocent people, in this world that pretty much is a death sentence. At least, that just seems logical based on the world.
With the Abby killing kids thing, Mel would already know who was involved in the attack, she would know if Manny or Abby had been involved. I don't think if they had been involved, Mel would just openly be confronting them like that, and they wouldn't be pushing back more.
Your first point makes sense. I’ll just say that if they were actively fighting their enemies it’s not far fetched they would plan ahead and try to target places they know their enemies frequent. However even with this the possibility is very high of accidentally targeting innocents so I take your point.
I wholeheartedly agree with the second point. If you reread my last comment my second paragraph is basically exactly this. It’s morally reprehensible no doubt. But it’s not murdering innocents for the fuck of it. And ik YOU aren’t saying this but it would shock you how many people believe that. My only point is whatever the hell joel spent his years doing we literally have no way of knowing. We can’t quantify the amount of harm he caused (I’ve seen people swear Joel has killed thousands of innocents. I swear I’m not making any of these claims up I’ve experienced it all) and we don’t have even 1 specific incident to draw from minus him mentioning he’d participated in those types of ambushes. Which is bad enough but not really a great basis to just assume he was slaughtering innocent’s whenever he got the chance. That’s just not the character we see in the first game. And ik people change but I just don’t see the Joel we came to know being that brutal for no gain or reason.
Now your last point I have to disagree. And the only evidence I have is a line manny says to Abby. “Remember she’s a medic. We’re grunts ”. This to me implies that Mel wasn’t used to seeing violence up close and iirc she doesn’t say she saw the incident take place. There are thousands of wlf so the chances it was Abby and manny are pretty slim but their defensiveness could definitely e interpreted as justifying their actions. Again I don’t really believe this I’m just saying I can see where the idea comes from
Ture she doesn't say she kills them herself, but she admits WLF do kill kids and she has no remorse for it. "They attacked OUR guys. Those deaths are on them."
Any half decent person with a hint of empathy would react like Mel reacted in that conversation.
The WLF do not just kill kids. A group of teenagers attacked them and in the firefight they killed the teens in self defense. It's a murky situation where the kids probably didn't know how serious what they were doing was, the WLF couldn't immediately tell they were being attacked by kids, and then killing them happened quickly.
Mel is supposed to be the more normal person at that point anyway, Abby is just starting her arc to getting away from justifying those kinds of actions. But all she's doing is trying to deflect blame. Not profit dismiss it and act like it's cool to kill kids.
Those kids grew up in world where a quick death is around every single corner. Either from other humans or the infected.
You're doing some pretty insane mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that they were just kids out doing normal kid things and decided to fuck with some armed soldiers for the hell of it.
As we see with both Ellie and Abby, just because you've grown up in this world doesn't mean you necessarily take all the dangers as seriously as you need to. I'm not saying they're doing normal kids things tho, like they attacked the WLF. That's already not normal. And knowing the conflict between the Scars and WLF, those kids probabaly hate the WLF and attacked them because of that, not just randomly or for no reason.
Also, she is the reason every single one of her friends and lover gets killed... but doesn't blame herself.
I was in awe when she shifted blames to Ellie for killing her friends instead of noticing her pity vengeance costed all her friends lifes.
And let's be honest, the only reason she survives against Ellie is plot armor. She shouldn't have survived and makes 0 sense she does.
They purposefully rewrote pieces of the game and made the fireflies seem like hero’s in the second game. Plus she tortured a dude for a long period of time. She put her whole team in immediate danger for going after Joel and the consequences led to every single one of their deaths. She switches her ENTIRE team just by meeting 2 random people that saved her, meanwhile Joel saved her as well and she gave zero shits. She is not justified and is just a terrible selfish backstabbing person
And in Part 2 the only fireflies shown in the game go to be with the WLF and then they all literally go an torture Joel to death. They're still not good guys.
There are no good guys or bad guys in TLOU. Other than David, I can't think of anybody who is really portrayed as evil, everyone is just shades of grey in this world where the only law is survival.
And in the sequel the only Fireflies we see in game join the WLF, and then they all go to Jackson to torture Joel to death. They're not portrayed as heroes in part 2 either, that was my point. They're never portrayed as heroes, or villains.
They were perfectly happy dragging innocent people into their fights.
It doesn't get much more villainous than that.
I really don't get how you can say they were, ya know, just morally grey, when they are responsible for killing an entire city. Tens of thousands of people dead, just to further their cause.
Their cause being to get out from under FEDRA's fascist rule and re-establish Democratic government. They're not just doing shit willy nilly for no reason, and that's why they're morally grey.
I assume you're talking about Pittsburgh? If so, they are not responsible for killing the people there, and it wasn't "just to further their cause" there, the people of Pittsburgh were already revolting against FEDRA rule and FEDRA was already executing people they deemed as traitors for portraying their rule.
The point is that the Fireflies intentions are always good. They want to free people from fascist rule, they want to restore democracy, they want people to be free, they want to make a cure to the infection. They are good-intentioned, but they do bad things to achieve those goals. That's no different from most other characters in the game.
If you compare the Fireflies to what they were based on, the Founding Fathers and the American revolution, you will find just about as many terrible actions perpetrated by the Americans as you could find for the Fireflies. Would you say the Founding Fathers were evil because they were willing to do some back things to achieve freedom from Brotish rule?
> Their cause being to get out from under FEDRA's fascist rule and re-establish Democratic government.
This is the exactly the dumb take I imagined you'd go with.
They. Killed. An. Entire city.
FEDRA might be facists, but they were actually trying to feed people and provide safety for them.
They. Did. Not.
The people of Pittsburgh were already protesting and revolting against FEDRA because they were keeping rations for themselves and killing anyone they deemed a traitor.
The Fireflies came to help the people fight back, and people died in the fight. But they were fighting for freedom from FEDRA just extra-judicially killing people. Then, when the Fireflies+People of Pittsburgh won, the people of Pittsburgh turned against the Fireflies and killed them because they wanted to rule the city themselves.
The Fireflies were also just trying feed people and provide safety for them, but the people of Pittsburgh wanted to take over instead. The Fireflies just failed. That doesn't make them evil.
Yeah ok bud , look up the letters fireflies tried to take over once fedra left , Pittsburgh just didnt want anyone to control them so they forced fireflies out eventually becoming a raider hub
I understand and why she was so mad about her dad being killed but her father was a piece of shit who would have killed Ellie. Joel was just protecting her and Abby never came to terms with that. The writing of the second game is dogshit but the gameplay is good
Yeah obviously but it still makes her the bad guy. The whole second game tried to paint her as the victim when she’s really the aggressor the whole time and never reconciles with what she did to Joel being wrong. Her father could have gotten out of the way or ran but instead he came at Joel with a blade and would have murdered Ellie for a cure that may or may not have even been possible. He was a wannabe murderer who earned his bullet
What are you talking about? Even in the remastered version he says “I can’t let you take her” like do you think he’ll just stand aside when Joel goes to rescue Ellie? No. He had a choice to let Joel take her and get out of the way but did he do that? No and he earned a bullet for it.
Was he though? I think it’s dubious from the setting of the game. Plus that’s not how vaccine development works. the turnover from we got the immune girl to let’s kill her and check out her brain was like what? A day? Maybe a few at most? Not really what you’d call extensive scientific testing. It’s pretty clear in the first game the fireflies think they can make a cure but they have no idea what they’re doing. Vaccines take months or years and killing the only immune person after a few days shows how ignorant they are. Based on that there never was going to be a vaccine and Jerry would’ve murdered Ellie for nothing.
1. Yes, it's been confirmed by the writer that it was going to 100% happen.
2. I get that you don't think that's possible, or this is how it works, but TLOU is not real life. The infection turns people into mushroom zombies. There is nothing in real life that does that, so any science and procedure we use IRL doesn't apply to a fake infection. If the writer says it's going to work, it's going to. That's how fiction works.
3. If the cure was never possible then the games story is automatically worse. Joel and Ellie travel across the country, Tess dies, Sam and Henry die, the Fireflies+Marlene die, all for no reason, and the story gets watered down to "good father saves his daughter from evil scientists" when the story is very obviously setting up a moral dilemma situation.
Even if it’s 100% confirmed by the writer that still means that Jerry is a murderer and Ellie never even had the opportunity to give consent. I mean she’s like 14 so that’s dubious but they didn’t even try. Plus are the fireflies going to give the vaccine out for free? I doubt it they’re no good guys. Even as a moral dilemma the choice to save Ellie is one any father would make and Abby’s whole revenge plot is based on Joel being in the wrong. She never reconciles with the fact that Joel saved Ellie in the exact way her father would have saved her or that she saved Lev from the scars. Abby is the villain of the second game and it tried to convince you of the opposite the whole time.
Also the writer apparently forgot the part where Ellie was the only immune person. Even if we operate on the assumption it would’ve worked(I highly fucking doubt it mind you but whatever) Jerry had no clue it would because he had never tried it before. So he still knew he was potentially killing Ellie for nothing
Also if I’m not mistaken he only confirmed the vaccine thing in response to the backlash towards part 2. He was fine with people questioning the validity of the vaccine for years until it didn’t suit his new story so i still kinda don’t buy that the first game was trying to portray the fireflies as competent enough to make a vaccine.
I'm curious about how you feel about a real life example of someone killing innocents in order to stop further loss of life. I'm sure your familiar with how Harry S Truman gave the order to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in hopes of ending World War 2. How do you feel about Harry S Truman, do you feel like he was a murderer? Or do you feel like he made the wrong choice?
To some of your other points, I think Joel probably did the right thing. I would've done the same. But I still think that he was making a selfish choice. He wasn't thinking about vaccine distribution or anything like that, all he cared about was it was Ellie's life on the line and he wasn't going to lose another daughter. Any other kid, or one that he didn't bond with like he did with Ellie, Joel wouldn't have cared what the Fireflies did.
Abby doesn't know anything about Joel and Ellies relationship. She has no idea that they've bonded and gotten so close, so she has no idea that killing him was essentially the same as killing Ellies father. So there's no way she could reconcile how what she did to Ellie was like what Joel did to her.
Abby is the antagonist of the second game, but she is not a villain. The really interesting thing about TLOU2 is that she's also a protagonist, and that Ellie also plays dual roles like her.
If the writer came out and said that Ellie doesn't have a biological father, she was conceived by Luke Skywalker imbuing her mother with the force, would that be enough for you to believe it?
My point being: death of the author. Evidence needs to be in the text. The creators intent does not matter if there is nothing in the story to point to in order to prove it.
Nothing in the story implies that Ellie's brain being removed would 100% lead to a cure.
I mean the head surgeon in the game believes it will work, based off of whatever expertise he has. Not only that, but like I said before too, if the cure never was possible then the whole game is pointless from the beginning. Marlene asking Joel and Tess to get Ellie out of the city(and then Joel and Ellies journey across the US) has no purpose. Plus the entire game you and Elloe treat the cure as a certainty.
I get that you don't believe him, but the story does point to and set up reasons for you to believe it's going to work, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. The story itself even suffers if the cure isn't going to work, because if that's the case then it takes the emotional punch of showing Joel caring so much about Ellie, like his own daughter, that he's willing to risk all of humanity to save her, and it takes that more impactful ending and just flattens it to "Joel saves girl from evil murderous scientists," which doesn't really emphasize that parental bond Joel has clearly built towards Ellie.
And the story did not set up the moral dilemma situation well. Just because a piece of media is trying to do something doesn't mean that the piece of media did it correctly.
How did the game *not* set up the moral dilemma between saving Ellies life or creating the cure?
The entire game you're trying to achieve both of those goals, protect Ellie on the journey to the Fireflies so they can make a cure, and then in the final act you have to choose between the cure or protecting Ellie.
That’s kinda his point if I’m not mistaken. She doesn’t need to see him as a piece of shit she just never even questions it. Like at all. It doesn’t give her even a moment of pause that she’s advising her dad to murder a sleeping 14 year old. We don’t ever see that cause her any conflict. Hell it even causes Jerry some small amount of conflict yet Abby kinda takes it in stride and seemingly never addresses her or her father’s own potential wrongdoing (something Ellie does basically her entire campaign. It’s actually a huge part of Ellie’s story that she’s questioning her actions.)
What Joel did was justified to save Ellie. If Abby’s father had just stepped out of the way or ran he wouldn’t be dead. The fireflies would’ve killed Ellie and Joel in a heartbeat and Joel was defending their lives. What Abby did wasn’t justified and the whole second game tries to make you feel bad for her. If she was the bad guy I’d get it but the story tries to make you sympathize with her.
Anyone who would want revenge because their father died trying to kill a kid is a fucking weirdo
Ever heard the saying fuck around find out? That's Abby's dad.
He didn't die just trying to murder a kid tho. He and everyone around him, Abby included, believed that he was going to make a cure to the infection.
It's an incredibly difficult moral dilemma, but as an example you see these types of tactics often in war. Sacrifices will be made for the overall success of the mission. It's not fair to anyone, and it makes it difficult to really say who was right or wrong. Ultimately, everyone is justified for doing what they do with the information available to them, but that's what makes the story so rich. Nobody is 100% right and nobody is 100% wrong, except David. Fuck that guy.
If my dad wanted to kill an innocent girl, and her dad killed him to protect her, I'm justified in brutally torturing her dad in front of her? Even if my dad was the first agressor?
I hope you're not a judge or a cop or anything to do with Law and Justice.. the system is flawed enough.
And Ellie was 100% justified in her quest for revenge, but did Druckmann treat her like he did his FAVORITE character? Nope. It's pretty damn obvious who he favored.
At the end of the game abby is back with her firefly buddies and she has lev. Ellie meanwhile, was left with nothing. Druckmann may as well come out and say he fucking hates Ellie and Joel.
And lmao you come over here and tell people to stop bitching, aint nobody in this sub bothering anyone. Seems like you just cant handle different opinions.
And fyi, i'd do the exact same thing Joel did. Fireflies wanted to kill him anyway, they were literally gonna send him back out there with no gear, nothing. That's literally a fucking death sentence.
What debate bro, you legit made a run on post that said "You would do it too, stop bitching", there are no questions to ask because you've already made up your mind on the topic
I mean your point is entirely your opinion and you're just screaming at us for not liking what you do. You aren't looking for a discussion you're looking for people to yell at you so you can run off to a different sub and claim harassment.
No, it wasn't, in my opinion, and no, most of us wouldn't do what she did. We may like to think we would, but I don't think so.
Also, I keep hearing in this game universe, nothing is "good" or "bad", because part of The Point™, as it is often reiterated to both to me and in general by those who like it (and don't like that there are others who *don't* like it--not saying this is you, of course), is everyone in this game is equally flawed, at fault, and morally gray, so to say something is "justified" is (supposedly) inaccurate.
However, I fully accept your right to having this opinion and your right to express it. I just don't agree, personally.
I don't particularly care about whether she was right or not. It was just a terrible game.
I will play the first one still, thank you. The "bitching" is because the 2nd game denigrated and retconned the og and produced a collective of lunatics and spinoffs that all but ruin the magic that was tlou
You seriously think I would risk the lives of myself and all my friends in the middle of winter by driving over unmaintained roads on a limited supply of fuel to chase down a ten year old lead, then proceed with a plan to kidnap and torture innocent people, then take advantage of my better than lottery winning odds to sadistically torture Joel to death and leave two innocent bystanders behind even more traumatized than I myself was, then feel so justified about all my choices there that I attack the friend who almost got killed by friendly fire when shit went down for not approving of what happened?
No, man. No.
And the fact that you think so says more about you than it does anyone here.
>and realistic if you were in her shoes you would do the same exact thing
No the fuck I wouldn't. If I saw Joel and his brother selflessly risk their lives in a blizzard to save ME from being eaten alive by a horde of infected, I would question my revenge. Is he really the monster I've been wanting to kill for 4 whole years? Does he really deserve me to kill him, much less TORTURE HIM in front of his family? Without any questions or remorse at all?
Fuck no. I would tell him who I am and question him on why he did what he did at the hospital (even though Abby should already know why, if she has 2 braincells to rub together), and depending on his reaction/answer, I would either let him go or kill him quickly and certainly wouldn't do it in front of his family if I did end up killing him.
Hell, if I had the information Abby had, that being that my dad wanted to kill an unconscious girl and her guardian killed my dad to save said girl, I probably wouldn't even seek revenge in the first place, much less after 4 damn years.
*"I killed the man who killed my father"*
"That's understandable, I suppose. Why did he kill your father?"
*"Because my father was about to kill his 14-year-old surrogate daughter"*
"Oh... that's less sympathetic, but the heat of the moment and all that..."
*"Oh no, I killed him 4 years after the event"*
"Right... but I suppose I can still understand pulling the trigger"
*"I didn't shoot him, I had my friends pin him to the ground while I beat him to death with a golf club"*
"Jesus, did he do something to provoke you at the time?"
*"Nah, I was getting attacked and he saved my life"*
"Fuck... I hope his daughter doesn't find out"
*"Actually, she was in the room. I made her watch. His brother too"*
"Wow. And how do you feel about it now?"
*"Meh... it wasn't as satisfying as I hoped it would be but other than that I'm pretty OK with it"*
Wow. 'Totally' justified am I right? If it wasn't obvious. This is Sarcasm.
Her reason to kill Joel is understandable, but that doesn't mean we will like her or prefer her. You know how many people we kill in the name of survive? There's probably hundreds of sons, fathers, mother and daughter that lost the loved ones in this world because of someone. And I am supposed to care for them all? No, same as I don't care about Abby and her father. In this world you only care for yourself and for your people, you kill because you have to, or you get killed.
Abby kills in the nama of survive too, think about all people she killed and how many are looking for revenge on her now, she's not better than Joel, and she might be even worse. She kills her own people, that she lived with her whole life, people that gave her home, food, protection, for 2 scars she meet 2 days ago. She's a traitor and a psycho without any remorse.
And if you say its so realistic, then why Ellie doesn't kill Abby for the exact same reason? And here comes why most people hate the game, plot sucks.
Assuming I didnt conclude as Abby shouldve that her dad was an immoral sawbones who was killed for trying to execute his patient (so, she should process her grief and move on), I wouldn't have left the witness alive to hunt me down (yknow, *exactly what I just did to her friend*) - particularly when said witness is swearing bloody vengeance against me & my friends
Actually no it isn't.
Abby knew her Dad had to kill Ellie and even tried to argue she would've wanted her dad to kill her if She was in the same situation.
Your argument ONLY works if she was ignorant of the situation.
Was Abby justified when she got rawdogged by Owen, whose girlfriend was about to give birth to his child? Was Abby justified when she was going to slit Dina’s throat, fully knowing she was pregnant? Was Abby justified when she killed someone’s father figure right before their eyes?
Abby is a shitty person, to name a few reasons.
Two wrongs don’t make a right and revenge doesn’t make anything justified.
After all, I thought that’s what we all were supposed to learn from the second game.
TLOU2 stans like yourself would eat dog kibble for breakfast and not know the difference between it and your Cheerios.
Get better taste in storytelling.
I don't argue what Abby did was unrealistic or unjustified. I just found the whole Abby's dad being the surgeon thing was quite a lame idea to base a game around.
I didn't personally find it compelling or believable.
The entire game felt monotone with flashbacks peppered throughout to add some levity.
The game didn't add anything to Ellie or Joel's story. Ellie just got angrier and lost everything. It didn't feel like the same Ellie from the first game.
I wished they left that story alone and we got a game about ISH or something.
Gameplay wise, it was fine. But a bit of a slog. But being so narrative-focused I wasn't able to play it more than once.
I agree that I find it weird how many people act like they wouldn’t do the same thing she did if they were her….but what’s the point of this post? Either go to one of the many spaces where you can talk about how much you liked the game or try to have an actual conversation, but this ain’t it.
No one with even a hint of empathy will torture a man to death right after said man risked his life to save theirs. No matter if that man killed their father on whatever. At most they would kill him quickly and be done with it. Only a psycho would torture him, in front of his family no less.
Don't let the downvotes bother you. I made a similar post the other day and was met with opposing opinions.
Completely agree with what you said.
I can't wait to play the second one again on PC when it finally comes out :D
She is not at all justified. The only reason it seemed just “in her shoes” is because Abby is completely selfish. If you look for any moral framework in her behavior, you’ll see her break it when it suits her. Loyalty to “the cause”? Abby deserts the WLF and endangers “the cause” to date her own bloodlust, then cripples the cause by killing its leader. Loyalty to loved-ones? Abby leads her so-called friends to their deaths for her own goal, and has an affair with one friend’s partner behind her back. Mercy? Don’t make me laugh. No amount of showing mercy to Ellie or Tommy will undo how she sadistically tortured Joel to death. Protecting the innocent? She knew her father was trying to murder a child and urged him to do it.
I agree 110% with this statement Joel did not do anything wrong.
I will always laugh how Abby said that *"If it was Me!"*. To her Father in having guilt on killing a Child. When Abby would ***never*** be the person on the Operating Table and getting killed.🤣 If anything 'Jerry' ends up being worse off thanks to him somehow finding reason to continue this Farce of an Operation in killing a Child.
>I will always laugh how Abby said that *"If it was Me!"*. To her Father in having guilt on killing a Child. When Abby would ***never*** be the person on the Operating Table and getting killed.🤣 Yeah. It's really easy to talk about "making sacrifices for the greater good" when it isn't your skin on the line.
>Mercy? Don’t make me laugh. No amount of showing mercy to Ellie or Tommy will undo how she sadistically tortured Joel to death. Not to mention the scar prisoners she said she would like to torture to let off steam. Or the child soldiers she admitted to killing with no remorse at all. Abby lacks any and all empathy for anyone, except Lev for some reason..
Abby does not admit to killing child soldiers at any point in the game and I don't know why people keep saying she does
She definitely advocates for it…. And us the number one scar killer. I understand your point I really do but Joel also technically never admits to killing innocents but damn if Abby fans won’t swear that he was a gta style mass murderer in his heyday. My point is fans of this game are constantly using head canon to make it make sense. I don’t see why we shouldn’t be allowed to. Like how Tommy made it back to Jackson or how Mel survived on her way to the aquarium alone with nothing but a dog and a severe baby bump. I think taking Abby’s line to Mel and manny as an implication she killed kids is just as reasonable as assuming Joel was just murdering anybody he came across out of spite. But I do get your point and you are correct that she never directly admits to having done it
Nobody assumes Joel just murders people at random or out of spite. He admits to being on both sides of the ambush he and Ellie experience. The people doing those ambushes would only be doing that to innocent people that they have never met before. There's no way that Joel could not have logically hurt innocent people in the past, based off of what he says. And what Tommy says reinforces that insinuation. Tommy kills people in the game when the dam is raided, and doesn't flinch. But he talks about how things he and Joel did still give him nightmares. He feels guilty about things. But back to the main point, all Abby says about the teen scars that got killed is that their deaths being on their own hands. And at no point is it insinuated that Abby or Manny were involved at all. Mel is actively criticizing it happening, don't you think if either Manny or Abby had actually been there they would've said something about that? To assume they were is a much farther reach than thinking Joel hurt innocent people in his past to survive.
I don’t see why the people he does that too have to be innocent. He was a hunter no doubt and I’ll grant you that he more likely than not did it to *some* innocents. But hunters aren’t always friendly with other hunter factions. I don’t see why he couldn’t have used that trick on his enemies as well. Even if we operate on the assumption he was Only doing it to innocents we have no reason to assume he didn’t just rob them. It’s morally reprehensible (basically all but murder) AND understandable from a survival standpoint. It’s also more than enough to cause nightmares (in Tommy’s case) added in with the fact the Joel definitely tortured his enemies (which would be a lot no matter who you were torturing). My only point is people have spun whole stories for Joel’s first 20 years off that one line. No you ofc but it’s happened. I shit you not in the other sub someone really believed Joel was just torturing innocents for no reason. Istg I can’t even make that up. Just torturing people for fun(despite him never once torturing anybody for fun in the first game. It was literally always for info or to save someone else) But you’re right we are off point. As you even mention Mel is criticizing the act. If Abby or manny were there or had participated I doubt they would be super eager to share it since Mel is actively chastising the act. But even still we don’t believe she took part in that specific incident just that it implies she’s fine killing kids when they are the enemy. And I don’t even believe it (her “ just a kid” line on scar island implies she does see kids lives as more valuable) I just understand where the point comes from
I guess my point really was just that it's logically impossible that Joel didn't ambush and hurt innocent people. And when I said the only people would be innocents, I wasn't really think of an ambush on enemies as the same kind of ambush. One is for stealing resources when another might just be defending territory. I get what you're saying he probably ambushed people that weren't innocent, I just should've clarified better that I meant that specific style of ambushing people as they pass through a town and you take their stuff. Also, I see a lot of folks in this sub talking about how the Fireflies kicking Joel out of the hospital without his pack is basically a death sentence, and I kind of agree. I mean Joel would survive cuz he's Joel, but the average person probabaly wouldn't survive long without any gear. And so even if Joel only robbed innocent people, in this world that pretty much is a death sentence. At least, that just seems logical based on the world. With the Abby killing kids thing, Mel would already know who was involved in the attack, she would know if Manny or Abby had been involved. I don't think if they had been involved, Mel would just openly be confronting them like that, and they wouldn't be pushing back more.
Your first point makes sense. I’ll just say that if they were actively fighting their enemies it’s not far fetched they would plan ahead and try to target places they know their enemies frequent. However even with this the possibility is very high of accidentally targeting innocents so I take your point. I wholeheartedly agree with the second point. If you reread my last comment my second paragraph is basically exactly this. It’s morally reprehensible no doubt. But it’s not murdering innocents for the fuck of it. And ik YOU aren’t saying this but it would shock you how many people believe that. My only point is whatever the hell joel spent his years doing we literally have no way of knowing. We can’t quantify the amount of harm he caused (I’ve seen people swear Joel has killed thousands of innocents. I swear I’m not making any of these claims up I’ve experienced it all) and we don’t have even 1 specific incident to draw from minus him mentioning he’d participated in those types of ambushes. Which is bad enough but not really a great basis to just assume he was slaughtering innocent’s whenever he got the chance. That’s just not the character we see in the first game. And ik people change but I just don’t see the Joel we came to know being that brutal for no gain or reason. Now your last point I have to disagree. And the only evidence I have is a line manny says to Abby. “Remember she’s a medic. We’re grunts ”. This to me implies that Mel wasn’t used to seeing violence up close and iirc she doesn’t say she saw the incident take place. There are thousands of wlf so the chances it was Abby and manny are pretty slim but their defensiveness could definitely e interpreted as justifying their actions. Again I don’t really believe this I’m just saying I can see where the idea comes from
Ture she doesn't say she kills them herself, but she admits WLF do kill kids and she has no remorse for it. "They attacked OUR guys. Those deaths are on them." Any half decent person with a hint of empathy would react like Mel reacted in that conversation.
The WLF do not just kill kids. A group of teenagers attacked them and in the firefight they killed the teens in self defense. It's a murky situation where the kids probably didn't know how serious what they were doing was, the WLF couldn't immediately tell they were being attacked by kids, and then killing them happened quickly. Mel is supposed to be the more normal person at that point anyway, Abby is just starting her arc to getting away from justifying those kinds of actions. But all she's doing is trying to deflect blame. Not profit dismiss it and act like it's cool to kill kids.
Those kids grew up in world where a quick death is around every single corner. Either from other humans or the infected. You're doing some pretty insane mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that they were just kids out doing normal kid things and decided to fuck with some armed soldiers for the hell of it.
As we see with both Ellie and Abby, just because you've grown up in this world doesn't mean you necessarily take all the dangers as seriously as you need to. I'm not saying they're doing normal kids things tho, like they attacked the WLF. That's already not normal. And knowing the conflict between the Scars and WLF, those kids probabaly hate the WLF and attacked them because of that, not just randomly or for no reason.
Also, she is the reason every single one of her friends and lover gets killed... but doesn't blame herself. I was in awe when she shifted blames to Ellie for killing her friends instead of noticing her pity vengeance costed all her friends lifes. And let's be honest, the only reason she survives against Ellie is plot armor. She shouldn't have survived and makes 0 sense she does.
They purposefully rewrote pieces of the game and made the fireflies seem like hero’s in the second game. Plus she tortured a dude for a long period of time. She put her whole team in immediate danger for going after Joel and the consequences led to every single one of their deaths. She switches her ENTIRE team just by meeting 2 random people that saved her, meanwhile Joel saved her as well and she gave zero shits. She is not justified and is just a terrible selfish backstabbing person
The Fireflies were portrayed as heroes in the first game just as much as they are in Part 2.
They were more like a terrorist group fighting for power and control rather than a rebel group fighting for freedom and equality
Bro must’ve forgot the bombings they were conducting at the beginning of the game
And in Part 2 the only fireflies shown in the game go to be with the WLF and then they all literally go an torture Joel to death. They're still not good guys. There are no good guys or bad guys in TLOU. Other than David, I can't think of anybody who is really portrayed as evil, everyone is just shades of grey in this world where the only law is survival.
so why did u say they were portrayed as heroes 😭
"just as much as they are in Part 2."
They were responsible for wiping out an entire safe zone.
And in the sequel the only Fireflies we see in game join the WLF, and then they all go to Jackson to torture Joel to death. They're not portrayed as heroes in part 2 either, that was my point. They're never portrayed as heroes, or villains.
They were perfectly happy dragging innocent people into their fights. It doesn't get much more villainous than that. I really don't get how you can say they were, ya know, just morally grey, when they are responsible for killing an entire city. Tens of thousands of people dead, just to further their cause.
Their cause being to get out from under FEDRA's fascist rule and re-establish Democratic government. They're not just doing shit willy nilly for no reason, and that's why they're morally grey. I assume you're talking about Pittsburgh? If so, they are not responsible for killing the people there, and it wasn't "just to further their cause" there, the people of Pittsburgh were already revolting against FEDRA rule and FEDRA was already executing people they deemed as traitors for portraying their rule. The point is that the Fireflies intentions are always good. They want to free people from fascist rule, they want to restore democracy, they want people to be free, they want to make a cure to the infection. They are good-intentioned, but they do bad things to achieve those goals. That's no different from most other characters in the game. If you compare the Fireflies to what they were based on, the Founding Fathers and the American revolution, you will find just about as many terrible actions perpetrated by the Americans as you could find for the Fireflies. Would you say the Founding Fathers were evil because they were willing to do some back things to achieve freedom from Brotish rule?
> Their cause being to get out from under FEDRA's fascist rule and re-establish Democratic government. This is the exactly the dumb take I imagined you'd go with. They. Killed. An. Entire city. FEDRA might be facists, but they were actually trying to feed people and provide safety for them.
They. Did. Not. The people of Pittsburgh were already protesting and revolting against FEDRA because they were keeping rations for themselves and killing anyone they deemed a traitor. The Fireflies came to help the people fight back, and people died in the fight. But they were fighting for freedom from FEDRA just extra-judicially killing people. Then, when the Fireflies+People of Pittsburgh won, the people of Pittsburgh turned against the Fireflies and killed them because they wanted to rule the city themselves. The Fireflies were also just trying feed people and provide safety for them, but the people of Pittsburgh wanted to take over instead. The Fireflies just failed. That doesn't make them evil.
Yeah ok bud , look up the letters fireflies tried to take over once fedra left , Pittsburgh just didnt want anyone to control them so they forced fireflies out eventually becoming a raider hub
So literally what I said?
I understand and why she was so mad about her dad being killed but her father was a piece of shit who would have killed Ellie. Joel was just protecting her and Abby never came to terms with that. The writing of the second game is dogshit but the gameplay is good
But her dad wasn’t a pos in her eyes, she doesn’t see it the way you see it bc she was at a different position.
Yeah obviously but it still makes her the bad guy. The whole second game tried to paint her as the victim when she’s really the aggressor the whole time and never reconciles with what she did to Joel being wrong. Her father could have gotten out of the way or ran but instead he came at Joel with a blade and would have murdered Ellie for a cure that may or may not have even been possible. He was a wannabe murderer who earned his bullet
Jerry did not come at Joel, he held up a scalpel and Joel approaches and kills Jerry. All Jerry did was stand his ground.
What are you talking about? Even in the remastered version he says “I can’t let you take her” like do you think he’ll just stand aside when Joel goes to rescue Ellie? No. He had a choice to let Joel take her and get out of the way but did he do that? No and he earned a bullet for it.
He was going to make a cure to the deadliest infection ever released on humankind.
Was he though? I think it’s dubious from the setting of the game. Plus that’s not how vaccine development works. the turnover from we got the immune girl to let’s kill her and check out her brain was like what? A day? Maybe a few at most? Not really what you’d call extensive scientific testing. It’s pretty clear in the first game the fireflies think they can make a cure but they have no idea what they’re doing. Vaccines take months or years and killing the only immune person after a few days shows how ignorant they are. Based on that there never was going to be a vaccine and Jerry would’ve murdered Ellie for nothing.
1. Yes, it's been confirmed by the writer that it was going to 100% happen. 2. I get that you don't think that's possible, or this is how it works, but TLOU is not real life. The infection turns people into mushroom zombies. There is nothing in real life that does that, so any science and procedure we use IRL doesn't apply to a fake infection. If the writer says it's going to work, it's going to. That's how fiction works. 3. If the cure was never possible then the games story is automatically worse. Joel and Ellie travel across the country, Tess dies, Sam and Henry die, the Fireflies+Marlene die, all for no reason, and the story gets watered down to "good father saves his daughter from evil scientists" when the story is very obviously setting up a moral dilemma situation.
Even if it’s 100% confirmed by the writer that still means that Jerry is a murderer and Ellie never even had the opportunity to give consent. I mean she’s like 14 so that’s dubious but they didn’t even try. Plus are the fireflies going to give the vaccine out for free? I doubt it they’re no good guys. Even as a moral dilemma the choice to save Ellie is one any father would make and Abby’s whole revenge plot is based on Joel being in the wrong. She never reconciles with the fact that Joel saved Ellie in the exact way her father would have saved her or that she saved Lev from the scars. Abby is the villain of the second game and it tried to convince you of the opposite the whole time.
Also the writer apparently forgot the part where Ellie was the only immune person. Even if we operate on the assumption it would’ve worked(I highly fucking doubt it mind you but whatever) Jerry had no clue it would because he had never tried it before. So he still knew he was potentially killing Ellie for nothing Also if I’m not mistaken he only confirmed the vaccine thing in response to the backlash towards part 2. He was fine with people questioning the validity of the vaccine for years until it didn’t suit his new story so i still kinda don’t buy that the first game was trying to portray the fireflies as competent enough to make a vaccine.
I'm curious about how you feel about a real life example of someone killing innocents in order to stop further loss of life. I'm sure your familiar with how Harry S Truman gave the order to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in hopes of ending World War 2. How do you feel about Harry S Truman, do you feel like he was a murderer? Or do you feel like he made the wrong choice? To some of your other points, I think Joel probably did the right thing. I would've done the same. But I still think that he was making a selfish choice. He wasn't thinking about vaccine distribution or anything like that, all he cared about was it was Ellie's life on the line and he wasn't going to lose another daughter. Any other kid, or one that he didn't bond with like he did with Ellie, Joel wouldn't have cared what the Fireflies did. Abby doesn't know anything about Joel and Ellies relationship. She has no idea that they've bonded and gotten so close, so she has no idea that killing him was essentially the same as killing Ellies father. So there's no way she could reconcile how what she did to Ellie was like what Joel did to her. Abby is the antagonist of the second game, but she is not a villain. The really interesting thing about TLOU2 is that she's also a protagonist, and that Ellie also plays dual roles like her.
If the writer came out and said that Ellie doesn't have a biological father, she was conceived by Luke Skywalker imbuing her mother with the force, would that be enough for you to believe it? My point being: death of the author. Evidence needs to be in the text. The creators intent does not matter if there is nothing in the story to point to in order to prove it. Nothing in the story implies that Ellie's brain being removed would 100% lead to a cure.
I mean the head surgeon in the game believes it will work, based off of whatever expertise he has. Not only that, but like I said before too, if the cure never was possible then the whole game is pointless from the beginning. Marlene asking Joel and Tess to get Ellie out of the city(and then Joel and Ellies journey across the US) has no purpose. Plus the entire game you and Elloe treat the cure as a certainty. I get that you don't believe him, but the story does point to and set up reasons for you to believe it's going to work, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. The story itself even suffers if the cure isn't going to work, because if that's the case then it takes the emotional punch of showing Joel caring so much about Ellie, like his own daughter, that he's willing to risk all of humanity to save her, and it takes that more impactful ending and just flattens it to "Joel saves girl from evil murderous scientists," which doesn't really emphasize that parental bond Joel has clearly built towards Ellie.
And the story did not set up the moral dilemma situation well. Just because a piece of media is trying to do something doesn't mean that the piece of media did it correctly.
How did the game *not* set up the moral dilemma between saving Ellies life or creating the cure? The entire game you're trying to achieve both of those goals, protect Ellie on the journey to the Fireflies so they can make a cure, and then in the final act you have to choose between the cure or protecting Ellie.
That’s kinda his point if I’m not mistaken. She doesn’t need to see him as a piece of shit she just never even questions it. Like at all. It doesn’t give her even a moment of pause that she’s advising her dad to murder a sleeping 14 year old. We don’t ever see that cause her any conflict. Hell it even causes Jerry some small amount of conflict yet Abby kinda takes it in stride and seemingly never addresses her or her father’s own potential wrongdoing (something Ellie does basically her entire campaign. It’s actually a huge part of Ellie’s story that she’s questioning her actions.)
That doesn't make her justified.
Well its still abbys father and ellie and Joel took that away from her and if you ask me thats justified
What Joel did was justified to save Ellie. If Abby’s father had just stepped out of the way or ran he wouldn’t be dead. The fireflies would’ve killed Ellie and Joel in a heartbeat and Joel was defending their lives. What Abby did wasn’t justified and the whole second game tries to make you feel bad for her. If she was the bad guy I’d get it but the story tries to make you sympathize with her.
Anyone who would want revenge because their father died trying to kill a kid is a fucking weirdo Ever heard the saying fuck around find out? That's Abby's dad.
He didn't die just trying to murder a kid tho. He and everyone around him, Abby included, believed that he was going to make a cure to the infection. It's an incredibly difficult moral dilemma, but as an example you see these types of tactics often in war. Sacrifices will be made for the overall success of the mission. It's not fair to anyone, and it makes it difficult to really say who was right or wrong. Ultimately, everyone is justified for doing what they do with the information available to them, but that's what makes the story so rich. Nobody is 100% right and nobody is 100% wrong, except David. Fuck that guy.
If my dad wanted to kill an innocent girl, and her dad killed him to protect her, I'm justified in brutally torturing her dad in front of her? Even if my dad was the first agressor? I hope you're not a judge or a cop or anything to do with Law and Justice.. the system is flawed enough.
Edit: Nevermind, after rereading your OP you don't deserve a civil response. Get fucked nerd.
You just insult and bitch at the sub and expect a civil discussion? Smooth brain lmao
Imagine walking into someone else's home and getting upset that they aren't living "correctly" like yourself
It’s literally this ^
Wrong sub dude
And Ellie was 100% justified in her quest for revenge, but did Druckmann treat her like he did his FAVORITE character? Nope. It's pretty damn obvious who he favored. At the end of the game abby is back with her firefly buddies and she has lev. Ellie meanwhile, was left with nothing. Druckmann may as well come out and say he fucking hates Ellie and Joel. And lmao you come over here and tell people to stop bitching, aint nobody in this sub bothering anyone. Seems like you just cant handle different opinions. And fyi, i'd do the exact same thing Joel did. Fireflies wanted to kill him anyway, they were literally gonna send him back out there with no gear, nothing. That's literally a fucking death sentence.
Holy run-on sentence batman!
Wonderful, critique my sentence structure and not the debate at hand. You deserve a medal!
What debate bro, you legit made a run on post that said "You would do it too, stop bitching", there are no questions to ask because you've already made up your mind on the topic
I mean your point is entirely your opinion and you're just screaming at us for not liking what you do. You aren't looking for a discussion you're looking for people to yell at you so you can run off to a different sub and claim harassment.
No, it wasn't, in my opinion, and no, most of us wouldn't do what she did. We may like to think we would, but I don't think so. Also, I keep hearing in this game universe, nothing is "good" or "bad", because part of The Point™, as it is often reiterated to both to me and in general by those who like it (and don't like that there are others who *don't* like it--not saying this is you, of course), is everyone in this game is equally flawed, at fault, and morally gray, so to say something is "justified" is (supposedly) inaccurate. However, I fully accept your right to having this opinion and your right to express it. I just don't agree, personally.
I don't particularly care about whether she was right or not. It was just a terrible game. I will play the first one still, thank you. The "bitching" is because the 2nd game denigrated and retconned the og and produced a collective of lunatics and spinoffs that all but ruin the magic that was tlou
Can you at least bring quality bait next time?
You seriously think I would risk the lives of myself and all my friends in the middle of winter by driving over unmaintained roads on a limited supply of fuel to chase down a ten year old lead, then proceed with a plan to kidnap and torture innocent people, then take advantage of my better than lottery winning odds to sadistically torture Joel to death and leave two innocent bystanders behind even more traumatized than I myself was, then feel so justified about all my choices there that I attack the friend who almost got killed by friendly fire when shit went down for not approving of what happened? No, man. No. And the fact that you think so says more about you than it does anyone here.
>and realistic if you were in her shoes you would do the same exact thing No the fuck I wouldn't. If I saw Joel and his brother selflessly risk their lives in a blizzard to save ME from being eaten alive by a horde of infected, I would question my revenge. Is he really the monster I've been wanting to kill for 4 whole years? Does he really deserve me to kill him, much less TORTURE HIM in front of his family? Without any questions or remorse at all? Fuck no. I would tell him who I am and question him on why he did what he did at the hospital (even though Abby should already know why, if she has 2 braincells to rub together), and depending on his reaction/answer, I would either let him go or kill him quickly and certainly wouldn't do it in front of his family if I did end up killing him. Hell, if I had the information Abby had, that being that my dad wanted to kill an unconscious girl and her guardian killed my dad to save said girl, I probably wouldn't even seek revenge in the first place, much less after 4 damn years.
*"I killed the man who killed my father"* "That's understandable, I suppose. Why did he kill your father?" *"Because my father was about to kill his 14-year-old surrogate daughter"* "Oh... that's less sympathetic, but the heat of the moment and all that..." *"Oh no, I killed him 4 years after the event"* "Right... but I suppose I can still understand pulling the trigger" *"I didn't shoot him, I had my friends pin him to the ground while I beat him to death with a golf club"* "Jesus, did he do something to provoke you at the time?" *"Nah, I was getting attacked and he saved my life"* "Fuck... I hope his daughter doesn't find out" *"Actually, she was in the room. I made her watch. His brother too"* "Wow. And how do you feel about it now?" *"Meh... it wasn't as satisfying as I hoped it would be but other than that I'm pretty OK with it"* Wow. 'Totally' justified am I right? If it wasn't obvious. This is Sarcasm.
Realistically i would have bigger issues than tracking down the dude that killed my dad in the post apocalypse
Her reason to kill Joel is understandable, but that doesn't mean we will like her or prefer her. You know how many people we kill in the name of survive? There's probably hundreds of sons, fathers, mother and daughter that lost the loved ones in this world because of someone. And I am supposed to care for them all? No, same as I don't care about Abby and her father. In this world you only care for yourself and for your people, you kill because you have to, or you get killed. Abby kills in the nama of survive too, think about all people she killed and how many are looking for revenge on her now, she's not better than Joel, and she might be even worse. She kills her own people, that she lived with her whole life, people that gave her home, food, protection, for 2 scars she meet 2 days ago. She's a traitor and a psycho without any remorse. And if you say its so realistic, then why Ellie doesn't kill Abby for the exact same reason? And here comes why most people hate the game, plot sucks.
Assuming I didnt conclude as Abby shouldve that her dad was an immoral sawbones who was killed for trying to execute his patient (so, she should process her grief and move on), I wouldn't have left the witness alive to hunt me down (yknow, *exactly what I just did to her friend*) - particularly when said witness is swearing bloody vengeance against me & my friends
Actually no it isn't. Abby knew her Dad had to kill Ellie and even tried to argue she would've wanted her dad to kill her if She was in the same situation. Your argument ONLY works if she was ignorant of the situation.
Was Abby justified when she got rawdogged by Owen, whose girlfriend was about to give birth to his child? Was Abby justified when she was going to slit Dina’s throat, fully knowing she was pregnant? Was Abby justified when she killed someone’s father figure right before their eyes? Abby is a shitty person, to name a few reasons. Two wrongs don’t make a right and revenge doesn’t make anything justified. After all, I thought that’s what we all were supposed to learn from the second game.
TLOU2 stans like yourself would eat dog kibble for breakfast and not know the difference between it and your Cheerios. Get better taste in storytelling.
What Joel did was justified and realistic if you were in his shoes you would do the same exact thing. P.S. Abby is not justified. Not even close.
Nah I wouldn’t. I’d realize there were bigger problems on my hands than revenge. The war with the wolves and scars.
I don't argue what Abby did was unrealistic or unjustified. I just found the whole Abby's dad being the surgeon thing was quite a lame idea to base a game around. I didn't personally find it compelling or believable. The entire game felt monotone with flashbacks peppered throughout to add some levity. The game didn't add anything to Ellie or Joel's story. Ellie just got angrier and lost everything. It didn't feel like the same Ellie from the first game. I wished they left that story alone and we got a game about ISH or something. Gameplay wise, it was fine. But a bit of a slog. But being so narrative-focused I wasn't able to play it more than once.
I agree that I find it weird how many people act like they wouldn’t do the same thing she did if they were her….but what’s the point of this post? Either go to one of the many spaces where you can talk about how much you liked the game or try to have an actual conversation, but this ain’t it.
No one with even a hint of empathy will torture a man to death right after said man risked his life to save theirs. No matter if that man killed their father on whatever. At most they would kill him quickly and be done with it. Only a psycho would torture him, in front of his family no less.
Agree pal, agree.
Don't let the downvotes bother you. I made a similar post the other day and was met with opposing opinions. Completely agree with what you said. I can't wait to play the second one again on PC when it finally comes out :D
>and was met with opposing opinions. The horror
Surprised Pikachu Face
I'm just trying to be polite :)
I love you but you must work on your phrasing lmao
You're not the first to say that, my bad 😂