Forums - Sony Discussion - The Last of Us Part II - Review Thread (MC: 94 / OC: 94)

Tagged games:

Well, it's now official: there are now more positive user reviews for TLOU2 on Metacritic than negative ones. As of right now...

57,079 positive reviews
56,974 negative reviews
5,460 mixed reviews

I highlight this distribution to point out the misleading nature of the 5.3 average user review score. Few people actually have mixed opinions about this game. It's very polarizing. Almost everyone either loves it or hates it.



Around the Network
BraLoD said:
KLAMarine said:

Innocent doctor? That doctor was going to kill Ellie.

See my post above.

He was not going to kill Ellie, she was going to die so he could develop a cure. You don't go out killing a doctor for doing their job.

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

The second game makes very clear how impactful was that choice Joel made, not only for that person, but for Ellie and ultimately the world, which I don't codemn him for, he was trying to save Ellie even if it was only for himself, he wanted to keep a life he value a lot.

Joel made an egotist choice and that had consequences, but in the end, like he said he would do that all over again, even as he saved a life in spite of many, a lot of us felt like he did what he should have done.

Well, one person didn't, and here we got.

That's the beauty of it, no matter what he did he would carry that burden for the rest of his life.

The first game is beautiful and is his story, the second game shows the consequences of that, and even as its really sad, it is the consequences of the characters own acts.

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?..



KLAMarine said:
BraLoD said:

He was not going to kill Ellie, she was going to die so he could develop a cure. You don't go out killing a doctor for doing their job.

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

The second game makes very clear how impactful was that choice Joel made, not only for that person, but for Ellie and ultimately the world, which I don't codemn him for, he was trying to save Ellie even if it was only for himself, he wanted to keep a life he value a lot.

Joel made an egotist choice and that had consequences, but in the end, like he said he would do that all over again, even as he saved a life in spite of many, a lot of us felt like he did what he should have done.

Well, one person didn't, and here we got.

That's the beauty of it, no matter what he did he would carry that burden for the rest of his life.

The first game is beautiful and is his story, the second game shows the consequences of that, and even as its really sad, it is the consequences of the characters own acts.

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.

Last edited by BraLoD - on 09 July 2020

Please note that virusses are something totally different than a parasitic fungi,if a fungi this agressive hits humanity we will suffer great losses.



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.

They needing to kill her to extract the fungus to develop a cure was lousy writting to force the final with Joel killing everyone.

And as a father and also understanding that for him the world was worth nothing anymore and he was just surviving and avoiding people there would be no point in saving humanity at the cost of the girl he took for daughter after bonding on the journey.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
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.

If these surgeons think they can extract the parasite from Ellie, surely they would be able to extract a sample out of Ellie without killing her. I have to wonder, did they even try to first run some non-invasive tests? MRIs or X-Rays? Why must they automatically resort to a procedure that kills the patient? What if they kill the parasite in the process thus potentially losing a very valuable resource?


I imagine the parasite is living off of Ellie and if Ellie dies, the parasite dies too: it's much better to keep the parasite alive by keeping Ellie alive so you could extract multiple samples and run multiple and various tests.

Like I said, these firefly doctors seem like idiots to me. Joel was right to take Ellie at the end of the first game.



DonFerrari said:
BraLoD said:

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.

They needing to kill her to extract the fungus to develop a cure was lousy writting to force the final with Joel killing everyone.

And as a father and also understanding that for him the world was worth nothing anymore and he was just surviving and avoiding people there would be no point in saving humanity at the cost of the girl he took for daughter after bonding on the journey.

I really don't think it was lousy in any way, the whole thing was very well set up, the entire game is set up to make that happen, and the fungus was always a brain invasive parasite, that piece of info is what modeled the whole infected enemies design and evolution.



KLAMarine said:
BraLoD said:

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.

If these surgeons think they can extract the parasite from Ellie, surely they would be able to extract a sample out of Ellie without killing her. I have to wonder, did they even try to first run some non-invasive tests? MRIs or X-Rays? Why must they automatically resort to a procedure that kills the patient? What if they kill the parasite in the process thus potentially losing a very valuable resource?


I imagine the parasite is living off of Ellie and if Ellie dies, the parasite dies too: it's much better to keep the parasite alive by keeping Ellie alive so you could extract multiple samples and run multiple and various tests.

Like I said, these firefly doctors seem like idiots to me. Joel was right to take Ellie at the end of the first game.

For 20 years all kind of research was done in everything possible and no way to fight back the fungus was ever developed, it's definitely not a simple process to make the cure, and the consensus probably was that something in the brain, the main infected body part and that was where the fungus evolution happens, was what could give them an answer to develop the cure.

The fireflies were being destroyed by that point, that gets evident from the beginning of the game where their own leader almost died alone trying to personally scort Ellie, and during the whole game as its all about going to places they are supposed to be and finding out they already left or got chased away from there, time after time. So they didn't have time or resources to keep any kind of prolongued tests and study that might result in nothing and endangers Ellie to the point they could lose their chance of doing what was probably the most effective way (as in, they get into a fight while still running some tests and Ellie get a bullet in the head and destroy her brain and with that their chances of using it).

Also, I agree with you that Joel should take Ellie away, because the whole game showed us how it was not worth to let her die to cure all the bastards you crossed.

But Joel was blind by his second chance of being a father and to save her as she couldn't with Sarah, and also, Ellie was changing him back into a good person, Joel did lots of shit before he met Ellie, the same way the bastards you fight to protect her from were doing.

But Joel did a bad thing again the in that process. He killed lots of people that were only trying to protect the cure for what was the primary cause of all the bad things that happened in the world and changed all of them.

Spoiler!

Also killing Abby's father was unavoidable in the original game, while the other doctors/assistants were optional (and by Abby's memory on the second game you can see the cannon was that he only killed that one and not the other two), and Marlene too later.

Those two deaths were completely optional, one he should simply bash the guy away or break his arm, and the other to cover the lies he was about to make to Ellie.

The ending of the game showed that even as a lot of us agreed with Joel saving her, that he was still doing bad unnecessary things too. Actually that was one of the biggest points of conversation back in 2013 when the original came out, those two deaths always sparked a lot of debate, specially the doctor one, it was common to talk about if you would save Ellie and if so if you would do it how Joel did.

That being the spark for the follow up, both to present a character (Abby) that by her side could only see Joel as the bad guy, and to introduce the new factions to fight against in the sequel by the connection of that new character (Abby).

The Wolfs were not just thrown into you out of nowhere and with no reason, they were effectively searching for Joel for years because of that, and by confronting them you got to confront their own enemies, the Seraphites, as well, getting mixed up in their fights.

Everything about the 2 games looks very well thought about and insert there for a good reason, to me, well, except maybe

Spoiler!
letting us wander into Jackson as we were supposed to, to know a little more of the people there so we could care a bit more about them by the point the main story starts to develop

, but even that was only a missed opportunity, not an actual issue.



BraLoD said:
DonFerrari said:

They needing to kill her to extract the fungus to develop a cure was lousy writting to force the final with Joel killing everyone.

And as a father and also understanding that for him the world was worth nothing anymore and he was just surviving and avoiding people there would be no point in saving humanity at the cost of the girl he took for daughter after bonding on the journey.

I really don't think it was lousy in any way, the whole thing was very well set up, the entire game is set up to make that happen, and the fungus was always a brain invasive parasite, that piece of info is what modeled the whole infected enemies design and evolution.

The game being setup to have Ellie being in need of die to have the cure doesn't really make that well written. It was something forced. Just as Deus Ex Machina situations on entertainment may have been planned that way, but that doesn't make they not Deus Ex Machina.

Cancer is very much brain invasive, and effectivelly takes parts of the brain off, still a neurocirurgion can extract part of the brain without killing the patient. Ellie is imune and the fungus didn't really develop so it is likely small and funghi certainly can be taken small portion and still would be working enough to do the research.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Tbh I was a bit disappointed about not being able to get through and write about it sooner. Seemed like I was missing out of the convo when it hit fever pitch.

Now I'm glad the chips fall the way they did, and surprised by the in-depth discussions had. Also *sad face* for @BraLoD not editing in VGC's conclusion into OP yet. :'(



August 2020 Articles:

https://www.darkstation.com/reviews/the-wake-mourning-father-mourning-mother-review (The Wake: Mourning Father, Mourning Mother Review - 2.5/5 Stars)