By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Would you save Ellie?

 

Ellie or vaccine?

Ellie 39 41.05%
 
Vaccine 56 58.95%
 
Total:95
irstupid said:

I'd say the conclusion that this did is the cliché fictional ending. You know the one where the hero makes the selfish decision to save one life over another, but being as its not real life, we as the viewer or player are always fine with it cause we know there is another solution out there somewhere. The decision gets reduced to a "Easy or hard mode" You know, you let her die you took the easy way. You let her live you need to play the sequel to find the cure for the world.

You see it a billion times in games like by bioware. You come upon a situation where there is a moral dilemma. There is one act that is usually portrayed as evil. You know let the bad guys kill someone, or kill a few people to solve the situation. Or the good act where you don't do that and you have to solve the situation by fighting a ton of people and its much harder.

TLOU kept the story small and personal and made it seem like you won. You don't see your consequences of your choice. Think of playing Witcher 3. Felt like every other mission I did, even though I felt I did the right thing, the moral thing, the good thing, it was then shown later afterwards that I done fucked up. In Witcher 3, it didn't matter what choice I made, both did an amazing job of making me feel like I made the wrong choice because of the consequences of said choice. In so many games, the choice is usually always just a what gives better rewards, or if there is a moral bar and you want to be one way or another. You really don't care about the actual dilemma cause it doesn't affect anything really in the game.

In TLOU they choreographed the scene as you described to make you happy with the choice and not care about the consequences. Except it wasn't really a choice to begin with at all. It's like a magician when he tricks you into doing or saying what he wants. You think it's your choice, but it was orchestrated by him the whole time. And again the conclusion of the story is basically the hard mode in a story/game. You know the whole, we didn't really fuck over the entire world, we just have to find the cure another way. A cop out to make it so that in the grand scheme of things someone can look back and say "see I made the right choice back then and wasn't being selfish"

It wasn't set up to think 'he made the right choice'. The narrative was set up to ask 'should he have lied to her?'. It was a personal story about Joel and Ellie, not a moral story about 'saving humanity'. It's disingenuous to broaden the theme in order to take exception to the outcome.  



 

The PS5 Exists. 


Around the Network
GribbleGrunger said:
irstupid said:

I'd say the conclusion that this did is the cliché fictional ending. You know the one where the hero makes the selfish decision to save one life over another, but being as its not real life, we as the viewer or player are always fine with it cause we know there is another solution out there somewhere. The decision gets reduced to a "Easy or hard mode" You know, you let her die you took the easy way. You let her live you need to play the sequel to find the cure for the world.

You see it a billion times in games like by bioware. You come upon a situation where there is a moral dilemma. There is one act that is usually portrayed as evil. You know let the bad guys kill someone, or kill a few people to solve the situation. Or the good act where you don't do that and you have to solve the situation by fighting a ton of people and its much harder.

TLOU kept the story small and personal and made it seem like you won. You don't see your consequences of your choice. Think of playing Witcher 3. Felt like every other mission I did, even though I felt I did the right thing, the moral thing, the good thing, it was then shown later afterwards that I done fucked up. In Witcher 3, it didn't matter what choice I made, both did an amazing job of making me feel like I made the wrong choice because of the consequences of said choice. In so many games, the choice is usually always just a what gives better rewards, or if there is a moral bar and you want to be one way or another. You really don't care about the actual dilemma cause it doesn't affect anything really in the game.

In TLOU they choreographed the scene as you described to make you happy with the choice and not care about the consequences. Except it wasn't really a choice to begin with at all. It's like a magician when he tricks you into doing or saying what he wants. You think it's your choice, but it was orchestrated by him the whole time. And again the conclusion of the story is basically the hard mode in a story/game. You know the whole, we didn't really fuck over the entire world, we just have to find the cure another way. A cop out to make it so that in the grand scheme of things someone can look back and say "see I made the right choice back then and wasn't being selfish"

It wasn't set up to think 'he made the right choice'. The narrative was set up to ask 'should he have lied to her?'. It was a personal story about Joel and Ellie, not a moral story about 'saving humanity'. It's disingenuous to broaden the theme in order to take exception to the outcome.  

Not exactly my point. The exact specifics are not important. My point was that they made his decision personal. The consequence being as it is, is a cliché end of the world or save one hundreds/thousands/millions/ect die situation. Seen it a million times and it was presented to the reader as a choice. Do this or that. cliché lazy writing. That is not how life works. In life you rarely see forks in the road, its only after you have made a decision can you look back and see that it was indeed a fork. You rarely know the consequences of your choices until after it's too late and the choice has long been since made.

I bring up Withcer 3 again, cause it did consequences in a realistic fashion. Rarely did I know what was going to happen until afterwards. I assumed I was doing the right thing that would either save the most people, fix the situation or even being selfish at times save one. I was always surprised by how it seemed like whatever I did ended up doing something I never expected. I save some ghost and it turns out she ends up spreading the plague due to that. I go and do something for someone and come back and they are murdered due to my actions, ect. The point is, I didn't know the results. In TLOU and others, you are basically presented with the conclusions in the choice. It asks you straightup. Do you want to do this, which will cause this, or do that which will cause this. It makes me not care. I choose for metagame reasons.

Or in the case of TLOU, I'm not making a choice but being pulled along the directors narrative he wants to tell me. I prefer that to fake choices sure, but the topic of this OP is stupid.

1. One would never be given a straight up choie like this

2. If you chose to save Ellie, you are delusional. Clearly you believe you are some superhero that can kill thousands of zombies and run through armored enemies and head shooting people left and right. Your living in a fake reality where you are getting kill streaks and your a god. In the real world, if you weren't already dead you would likely be hiding in a bomb shelter for the rest of your short life cause if you did step foot outside the hundreds of zombie would kill you and you can't just hide in the tall grass. So your delusional thoughts that you can somehow protect you and ellie are clouding your judgement. Most likely you would have already considered committing suicide thousands of times and probably even killing Ellie thousands of times to put her out of this miserable existence.

But no, us saying save the world are the kindergarten opportunistics. Ha. I say those that say otherwise are the ones that are living a pipe dream.



I voted Ellie, but in reality, I would've let her decide.



Owner of PS4 Pro, Xbox One, Switch, PS Vita, and 3DS

irstupid said:
GribbleGrunger said:

It wasn't set up to think 'he made the right choice'. The narrative was set up to ask 'should he have lied to her?'. It was a personal story about Joel and Ellie, not a moral story about 'saving humanity'. It's disingenuous to broaden the theme in order to take exception to the outcome.  

Not exactly my point. The exact specifics are not important. My point was that they made his decision personal. The consequence being as it is, is a cliché end of the world or save one hundreds/thousands/millions/ect die situation. Seen it a million times and it was presented to the reader as a choice. Do this or that. cliché lazy writing. That is not how life works. In life you rarely see forks in the road, its only after you have made a decision can you look back and see that it was indeed a fork. You rarely know the consequences of your choices until after it's too late and the choice has long been since made.

I bring up Withcer 3 again, cause it did consequences in a realistic fashion. Rarely did I know what was going to happen until afterwards. I assumed I was doing the right thing that would either save the most people, fix the situation or even being selfish at times save one. I was always surprised by how it seemed like whatever I did ended up doing something I never expected. I save some ghost and it turns out she ends up spreading the plague due to that. I go and do something for someone and come back and they are murdered due to my actions, ect. The point is, I didn't know the results. In TLOU and others, you are basically presented with the conclusions in the choice. It asks you straightup. Do you want to do this, which will cause this, or do that which will cause this. It makes me not care. I choose for metagame reasons.

Or in the case of TLOU, I'm not making a choice but being pulled along the directors narrative he wants to tell me. I prefer that to fake choices sure, but the topic of this OP is stupid.

1. One would never be given a straight up choie like this

2. If you chose to save Ellie, you are delusional. Clearly you believe you are some superhero that can kill thousands of zombies and run through armored enemies and head shooting people left and right. Your living in a fake reality where you are getting kill streaks and your a god. In the real world, if you weren't already dead you would likely be hiding in a bomb shelter for the rest of your short life cause if you did step foot outside the hundreds of zombie would kill you and you can't just hide in the tall grass. So your delusional thoughts that you can somehow protect you and ellie are clouding your judgement. Most likely you would have already considered committing suicide thousands of times and probably even killing Ellie thousands of times to put her out of this miserable existence.

But no, us saying save the world are the kindergarten opportunistics. Ha. I say those that say otherwise are the ones that are living a pipe dream.

You write a hell of a lot LOL.

You're still doing it. This was never the intention of the narrative but you're saying it was in order to state it's cliqued. The ending was simply a personal story of a 'lie'. The whole narrative from start to finish was leading naturally to that conclusion, which is why it had so much impact. You're ignoring 99% of the narrative to draw a conclusion only available at the very end of the game. It's NOT part of the story arc. It's a road to redemption story and Joel gets to redeem himself at the end by giving him a second chance to save his daughter, which he does. 

The only reason 'saving humanity' has entered the conversation is because people (like yourself) have stepped outside of the narrative. Those who supported the narrative made the mistake of arguing 'well, we can't be sure they would find a cure anyway' and those who won't accept the narrative argue 'Joel should have saved humanity'. Neither of those two positions are of any relevance whatsoever.  



 

The PS5 Exists. 


In TLoU2, if the truth comes out and Joel says "I probably shouldn't have saved you. That was wrong and I really messed up." will some of you change your minds or will you still say that Joel made the right decision?

Also, the fact that were still discussing this years after the game released says a lot about what ND was able to pull off. I personally didn't think the gameplay was the best but the emotional impact can't be denied.



Around the Network
m0ney said:
CrazyGamer2017 said:

So I'd save Ellie any day, she is NOT responsible for what happens to mankind, it's NOT her job or destiny to die to save others. Killing her would be murdering a healthy human.

If you guys think life is just a mathematical equation where you can kill one to save others, you have serious issues with your moral compass, which is kind of expected from the masses I guess.

That is utter BS. What about situations where you have to choose who will live and who die? (Mass Effect, The Walking Dead). How do you apply your morality to those? I will be waiting your answer :grin

First we are talking about The Last of Us and second I'm obviously discussing the morality of such a choice and choosing to murder Ellie is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. If you don't see it you are really screwed inside which again would not really surprise me, after all you are part of this very violent and very primitive species known as humans...

And second, I cannot speak of Mass Effect, I never played it. Can't really speak about The Walking Dead game, never played it either but I know the TV show and again in that universe you DON'T HAVE to kill anyone, infected people are already dead so you cannot let them infect a living person on purpose, if you do, if you CHOOSE to decide that a living person must be infected, let's say a child (to keep with the issue of The Last of Us) in order to save your filthy selfish skin, dude there are no words strong enough that I know of in the English language to express what kind of low person you are.

There goes my answer and I'm pretty sure that grin must be gone.



Ultr said:
Well was there evidence that the vaccine would even have worked? I dont think so. So this is a though choice

NO, it's not a tough choice at all. You DO NOT kill a child that is healthy and that has the right to live. Ellie doesn't owe SHIT to mankind. Sacrificing a healthy living person on purpose as in MURDERING that person is wrong, so fucking wrong and it's scary to see that so many people (when you see the poll) don't see it.

It reminds me of a documentary I saw long ago, on the psychology and morality of people. In short they interviewed a sample of people, a lot of people on what they would do in case of specific scenarios where for example society collapses or there are no laws anymore or cops etc... I don't remember the details exactly but I remember the result of this experiment, you don't forget this shit.

In short a MAJORITY of the people sampled, people like you and me that are very nice should you cross their path in the street, polite people, civilized people etc, would murder you with no hesitation should the shit hit the fan. In other words, a lot of people out there behave only because there is a system where if they hurt someone, they could go to jail or worse.

A comparison has been drawn back then with nazy Germany. The exact inversion of this test actually. The theory went that Most nazis that committed horrible crimes back in those days, would be very nice, very polite, very civilized people should they have lived in times of law and order, well most of them. I'm not saying a few wouldn't be psychopath killers even in our modern world but the majority of them would be "civilized".



CrazyGamer2017 said:
m0ney said:

That is utter BS. What about situations where you have to choose who will live and who die? (Mass Effect, The Walking Dead). How do you apply your morality to those? I will be waiting your answer :grin

First we are talking about The Last of Us and second I'm obviously discussing the morality of such a choice and choosing to murder Ellie is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. If you don't see it you are really screwed inside which again would not really surprise me, after all you are part of this very violent and very primitive species known as humans...

And second, I cannot speak of Mass Effect, I never played it. Can't really speak about The Walking Dead game, never played it either but I know the TV show and again in that universe you DON'T HAVE to kill anyone, infected people are already dead so you cannot let them infect a living person on purpose, if you do, if you CHOOSE to decide that a living person must be infected, let's say a child (to keep with the issue of The Last of Us) in order to save your filthy selfish skin, dude there are no words strong enough that I know of in the English language to express what kind of low person you are.

There goes my answer and I'm pretty sure that grin must be gone.

Dude.

Stop what you're doing and watch a playthrough of Walking Dead on YouTube RIGHT NOW.



d21lewis said:
CrazyGamer2017 said:

First we are talking about The Last of Us and second I'm obviously discussing the morality of such a choice and choosing to murder Ellie is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. If you don't see it you are really screwed inside which again would not really surprise me, after all you are part of this very violent and very primitive species known as humans...

And second, I cannot speak of Mass Effect, I never played it. Can't really speak about The Walking Dead game, never played it either but I know the TV show and again in that universe you DON'T HAVE to kill anyone, infected people are already dead so you cannot let them infect a living person on purpose, if you do, if you CHOOSE to decide that a living person must be infected, let's say a child (to keep with the issue of The Last of Us) in order to save your filthy selfish skin, dude there are no words strong enough that I know of in the English language to express what kind of low person you are.

There goes my answer and I'm pretty sure that grin must be gone.

Dude.

Stop what you're doing and watch a playthrough of Walking Dead on YouTube RIGHT NOW.

Why? That would change NOTHING. I don't care what happens in that game. First cause we are talking about the Last of US and second cause I explained everything in regard to the TV show The Walking Dead.

Whatever twist of scenario happening in that game, you DO NOT kill a healthy individual especially a child to save others. You do your best to not let others get infected or whatever. Once they are infected if you could not stop that, you look for every possible solution that could maybe help them EXCEPT kill a child. I could even go with a grown-up that ACCEPTS willingly to die to save others, but murdering him, forcing him/her to die if he's healthy like Ellie is. There is no scenario that would change this fact. Murder is wrong in ANY universe.



CrazyGamer2017 said:

There goes my answer

In those two games at certain points you have to choose who will live and who die, I mean when you choose to save one, the other dies, there is no other option (well I guess you can stop playing the game as an option).

You have no idea how low of a person I am, I recently caught two moles in a deadly trap and only felt a little sorry for them, they were minding their business destroying my lawn.



My Etsy store

My Ebay store

Deus Ex (2000) - a game that pushes the boundaries of what the video game medium is capable of to a degree unmatched to this very day.