The Last of Us Part II - Review Thread (MC: 93 / OC: 93)

[0D0]

KLAMarine said:

KratosLives said:
My wife is still attached with joel and could't forgive/empathise with abby. At the end of it was was content and felt sorry for abby in the end scene, but said the first is still her fav, and misses joel .I on the other hand was able to accept abby and her actions. Love it. I guess it's all about how one interprets the game world, the chracters and past actions and setting them selves up for expectations. I liked joel in the first game but his actions at the end had me perplexed. I knew what was coming.

What was perplexing about it? Joel saved his surrogate daughter, someone he grew to deeply care for.

I'd have done the same thing. To avoid my daughter death and to cover up her secret. Most people on that building would try to track my daughter, so they'd have to be taken down.

BraLoD said:

KLAMarine said:

He was not going to kill Ellie, she was going to die so he could develop a cure.

>So was the surgeon just gonna lay Ellie down on the operating table and wait for her to die from natural causes or something? I don't understand. The process of developing the vaccine was going to kill her and fireflies were the ones developing said vaccine.

They were very much going to kill Ellie.

It's like blaming a scientist for testing a vaccine/medicine, it's a process for a greater good, and Ellie wanted that herself.

>I still maintain the fireflies were staffed by idiots. There's a real world example we can compare this to: the fight against smallpox.

Long story short, when inoculating people against small pox, a simple sample of cow pox, a less severe form of small pox, was all that was needed. The cow pox patient didn't need to die. Why does Ellie have to die?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqUFy-t4MlQ

Maybe I'm missing something, some portion where the science in TLoU is explained in more detail?..

There is a very big difference between killing a person as a murder and as a way to save the entire planet, and she wanted it herself.

Ellie was going to die for the vaccine, not because the doctor choose to kill her, that's what I'm talking about, the doctor was innocent, he was saving the world and Ellie was collateral damage (which is still not good, but he is not doing it because he wants to).

Spoiler!

And in the sequel you see he is still sad she would have to die for it, thinking about what would he do if she was his daughter, aka, the dillema Joel was into.

About if they were able to not kill her and still get a cure, pay in mind that it was the world 20 years after the apocalipse, and they were a revolutionary army in the brink of destruction, they didn't have anywhere close the same means, resources and capacity for such delicate surgery as they would in the world before the outbreak.

They explain the only way to develop the vaccine is to extract the part that growns in the brain, which I don't even know if modern science was able to without killing the patient.

The fungus grows in the brain (which is evident everywhere, from the story to the infected evolution stages as well), and at least in the story, only having access to the part of Ellie's brain that was able to fight back the fungus growth they could understand what was the cause and develop a cure.

I'm on the opinion that she had no choice. She was a child and I know better. Children shouldn't decide this sort of things. A bunch of adults that aren't their parents, simply deciding to take her life to do a surgery that could remotely, by some chance, save the world is something that I don't agree with. I bet none of those doctors would do that to their children. So why would they do that to mine, or even worse, to a girl, an orphan, that have no parents to speak for her? I'd speak for her and kill everyone to protect her.

Last edited by 0D0 - on 28 August 2020