The Last Of Us 2 - now with protagonist-murdering trannies

[Lyric Suite]

Well it's revolutionary for consoles players.

My go-to example of this is when multiple 'journalists' knocked DmC (the Devil May Cry reboot) because the music was too simple.

It literally had a gameplay feature that the music got better and more complex as you finished combos. They were literally running through the entime game at D combo level.

That's all sorts of hilarious.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Well it's revolutionary for consoles players.

Not well known, but this is actually a video of machine learning in action.
Don't tell anyone to ruin the secret.

 

[toro]

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019...r_joe_carnahan_calls_neil_druckmann_a_jerkoff

The history of the Uncharted film is a long, rocky road. The adaptation has been in the works for such a long time, and various people have come and gone from the project. One such person was Joe Carnahan, a Hollywood writer on action flicks like Smokin' Aces and The A-Team. He hopped aboard the Uncharted movie for a while in 2016, producing an R-rated script with Ryan Reynolds in mind to play the lead role.

He spoke about this is during a recent interview with Discussing Film. Carnahan stated that he wanted his script to meet the approval of Amy Hennig, the creative mind behind Uncharted: "Ultimately I wanted to make Amy happy, it was her creation." However, he also made his feelings heard about Neil Druckmann, who we know co-directed The Last of Us and picked up the reins on Uncharted 4: A Thief's End.

"I think whatshisface – I’m not a fan – the guy that kind of stole credit for it," said Carnahan, referring to Druckmann. Discussing Film clarified his name, and the writer responded, "Yeah, that jerkoff. Whatever, there was a bit of saboteuring there going on with Naughty Dog."

He continued: “Amy created that world and she was the one that I really wanted to please. That other guy, whatever the hell his name is, he’s a hitchhiker." A little unfair, in our opinion -- the situation surrounding Hennig's departure from the developer was never made perfectly clear, but to lay into Druckmann in this manner is probably uncalled for.

As far as the movie goes, it recently scooped up a new director. Will we ever see it? What do you think of Carnahan's comments? Be nice to each other in the comments below.

Druckmann is like all Jewish stereotypes in one.

 

[PulsatingBrain]

but to lay into Druckmann in this manner is probably uncalled for.

Why are they commenting like this? What the fuck would they know about it?

That shit annoys me. Don't try to tell me how to feel about your article, faggot.

 

[Kem0sabe]

 

[ZVERMIX]

Well, seems like fucking Druckmann outdid himself this time.

It was probably posted ITT earlier, but there's a more detailed plot outline going around (https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/comments/gexokm/full_plot_of_tlou2_i_think/) and it seems more plausible and matches the leaked footage. You don't play as Abby for half the game (closer to 30%) and you don't hunt and kill Ellie. Almost all Abby sections are devoted to trying to make you feel sympathy for her and relate. This might've worked as a good sequel, in another universe (that's assuming you tolerate console interactive movies from ND in the first place, I know many people here don't).

The thing is, turning things around and making the game a revenge tale vs Joel makes sense for me (especially if you throw in undoing his mistakes and making Ellie go ahead with the cure in the end). I was disgusted with Joel's actions in the original's ending. They made me play a murderous villain who was willing to slaughter a hundred innocent and semi-innocent people mostly because of his past daughter trauma. The environmental storytelling of the hospital level made it clear Ellie was the real key to the cure, and Fireflies tried every measure to avoid killing Ellie. They also had many chances to kill Joel and let him go every time (including the end with Marlene). Also, Ellie did specifically sign off on sacrificing herself for the cure. All this made me disgusted by Joel's actions and I would be okay with a revenge story which culminates in killing him, while showing the futility of vengeance and the circle of violence. I'm aware that it's trite, but at least it makes sense. I know many people like Joel as a tough antihero making tough choices in a tough world, but that's not my cup of tea. Hated Joel, but was surprised that a game plot made me feel so strongly. Overall I liked the game for the survival gameplay and spectacular presentation (as always with ND).

All in all, I would probably be defending ND after these leaks. Not Druckmann personally, fuck him for forcing Amy out - I love ND mostly for Uncharted and Crash from childhood. I would be defending them IF they executed the revenge tale well. Druckmann is probably aware he is going for a controversial plot here with getting rid of Joel in this way, you need be very careful in execution. How dumb do you have to be to fill you game with political agenda which makes no sense in your post-apoc setting at the same time (all while openly saying "I have this agenda").

Don't focus on Ellie's interracial lesbian romances. Don't parade around with your 'diverse' cast which consists mostly of women and ABC people, including a trans kid hand-picked by Druckmann. And for the love of god, DON'T MAKE YOUR AVENGER ... WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY ARE. It's not confirmed if she's trans, and I don't know which is worse - trans in post-apoc or a natural woman twice the size of men in post-apoc. I would be fine with a female avenger, but holy fuck - not like this...

God I hope this bombs.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I was disgusted with Joel's actions in the original's ending. They made me play a murderous villian who was willing to slaughter a hundred innocent and semi-innocent people mostly because of his past daughter trauma. The environmental storytelling of the hospital level made it clear Ellie was the real key to the cure...

The only thing that's clear is that the Fireflies *think* she's the key to the cure and they are willing to kill her to give it a shot. Are there any guarantees that it would work? That they can make this cure and manufacture enough under obviously limited conditions? Since Joel bonded with the girl over the course of the trip his actions are perfectly understandable and have nothing to do with the past trauma. She saved his life and looked after him when he was recovering, yet he was expected to hand her over to be killed and dissected like a frog. No wonder he objected when he realized it.

They also has many chances to kill Joel and let him go every time (including the end with Marlene).

He's proven him useful and capable. Why kill him when he can be useful in the future?

 

[ZVERMIX]

Since Joel bonded with the girl over the course of the trip his actions are perfectly understandable and have nothing to do with the past trauma. She saved his life and looked after him when he was recovering, yet he was expected to hand her over to be killed and dissected like a frog. No wonder he objected when he realized it.

Still doesn't justify his actions for me, not by a long shot. Also, he takes away Ellie's agency, since she decided to go ahead with the cure at all cost. But I understand how Joel's actions make sense for some people, that's why I respected the game and the plot. Not many games can make you feel so strongly and connect with the characters - although a lot of that has to do with their production values and well-done cinematics.

He's proven him useful and capable. Why kill him when he can be useful in the future?

It might be part of the reason, but I think the primary reason was that Marlene didn't want Joel's blood on her hands (both at the beginning of the last level and at the very end). This is sort of reinforced by her audio journals.

 

[cvv]

Since Joel bonded with the girl over the course of the trip his actions are perfectly understandable and have nothing to do with the past trauma. She saved his life and looked after him when he was recovering, yet he was expected to hand her over to be killed and dissected like a frog. No wonder he objected when he realized it.

Still doesn't justify his actions for me, not by a long shot.

Yep. ND sets up a false moral equivalency here. Because players grew attached to Joel through his struggle they feel it's actually tough to decide if his action was justified or not.

In reality if we were offered this "conundrum" in a vacuum, without knowing or caring for Joel - if someone just told us "a person A murders a bunch of scientists trying to save the human race just because he's attached to the test subject" - very few people would actually side with him.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yep. ND sets up a false moral equivalency here. Because players grew attached to Joel through his struggle they feel it's actually tough to decide if his action was justified or not.

It has nothing to do with his struggle. He's asked to hand over a kid to be dissected. That's it. That's the choice and it's a very simple one.

In reality if we were offered this "conundrum" in a vacuum, without knowing or caring for Joel - if someone just told us "a person A murders a bunch of scientists trying to save the human race just because he's attached to the test subject" - very few people would actually side with him.

Everything is simple if you remove the context and reasons.

The Battle of Alamo - the Mexican army removes squatters.
The Battle of Thermopylae - 300 angry protesters disrupt the peaceful march of the Persian army.
Simo Häyhä - the most prolific serial killer in Finnish history.

You've upgraded the Fireflies into the saviours of the human race (apparently manufacturing a cure is very easy in a post-apocalyptic world, barely an inconvenience) and downgraded the girl who's about to be killed into a generic 'test subject' that stupid Joel somehow got attached to.

 

[ZVERMIX]

It has nothing to do with his struggle. He's asked to hand over a kid to be dissected. That's it. That's the choice and it's a very simple one.

Well it's not that simple. But if you want to distill it I guess it all comes down to age old question: "Would you do the lesser of two evils?". Of course the situation is exemplified by the brutality of his actions (we are for sure made to kill some people we didn't have to, for example), by his backstory with Sarah etc. Don't forget that Marlene cared for Ellie since her birth and promised her mother she would care for Ellie. Joel wasn't unique in his connection to Ellie. And Marlene still made the tough choice, which Joel couldn't.

And even if you feel that Ellie must be saved in that situation, I question the reasons Joel was doing it for. For me it feels like he saved her for him, rather than saving her for her. Especially since Ellie herself wanted to go for the cure, she said "Don't make my death be for nothing" (loose quote).
Now her eventual death will be for nothing, even of old age in this doomed world. This makes Joel's remark to Marlene at the end ('It ain't for you to decide how she dies') especially hypocritical, since he went against Ellies wishes and decided for himself.
That's why I feel Joel's decision was in a big part selfish and connected to his past trauma.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It has nothing to do with his struggle. He's asked to hand over a kid to be dissected. That's it. That's the choice and it's a very simple one.

Well it's not that simple. But if you want to distill it I guess it all comes down to age old question: "Would you do the lesser of two evils?". Of course the situation is exemplified by the brutality of his actions (we are for sure made to kill some people we didn't have to, for example), by his backstory with Sarah etc. Don't forget that Marlene cared for Ellie since her birth and promised her mother she would care for Ellie. Joel wasn't unique in his connection to Ellie. And Marlene still made the tough choice, which Joel couldn't.

There are plenty of foster parents or guardians who mistreat kids in their care or use them just to get more money from the government. The fact that Marlene knew her from childhood means nothing by itself, but let's say Marlene does believe in the cure and thus in the greater good and it's a hard choice for her. My point is that killing the girl even if for all the right reasons does NOT equal cure. Believing they can make the cure and actually making the cure are two different things. On top of that mass producing the cure is something entirely different, so I'd say the chances of her death serving a practical purpose are very low.

And even if you feel that Ellie must be saved in that situation, I question the reasons Joel was doing it for. For me it feels like he saved her for him, rather than saving her for her. Especially since Ellie herself wanted to go for the cure, she said "Don't make my death be for nothing" (loose quote).

Ellie is a kid, easy to manipulate, which is what Marlene did (if I have to guess). Essentially, she was talked into committing suicide. Joel interfered. If you want we can debate whether or not people who want to kill themselves should be stopped.

 

[cvv]

That's the choice and it's a very simple one.

Everything is simple if you remove the context and reasons.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Indeed, except for I simplified the choice (do you let them kill the girl for a *chance* to get the cure or not) and you simplified the narrative (a deranged man kills scientists working on a cure).

 

[cvv]

Indeed, except for I simplified the choice (do you let them kill the girl for a *chance* to get the cure or not) and you simplified the narrative (a deranged man kills scientists working on a cure).

Your entire analogy with the context is completely off, in order for that choice to be a real moral conundrum it SHOULD be presented without any emotional attachment to any party involved.

I'll literally draw a picture:

THIS is an actual moral quandary. Now imagine you start polluting it with moving background stories about that dude on the right or the chick by the lever. You'd turn this into a fucking eintopf, clouding and muddying everything with feelz.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You keep missing the point. It's not the trolley problem. It's 'you can kill this one person and maybe, just maybe something good will come out of it Or not.' problem.

 

[KVVRR]

The Fireflies have been shown through the whole game to be very incompetent, to the point of trusting some random guy with what they believe to be "the cure" only for them to knock him out once he gets to their door - while TRYING TO SAVE ELLIE FROM DROWNING.
There's no way they could've made a vaccine, much less a cure. And I seriously doubt they did every study they could while Joel was out (a day? Maybe two?), yet they still want to kill Ellie for the fungus that is in her brain, when according to the game itself she should still be carrying spores through her entire system... potentially making her a carrier.

People thought all of this was intentionally put in the story in order to make the situation less black and white, but with this sequel coming along I don't think that was the case at all.

 

[TheChickenKing]

Plus, Ellie never actually made a decision to die for the (potential) cure. She was unconscious when you link up with the Fireflies, and after they think Joel is contained, they finally say oh by the by, it might hurt her when we rip her brain out. You could argue that, at a minimum, the fireflies and Joel are on similar moral grounds as they both removed any choice from Ellie in the matter but that's about it.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Indeed, except for I simplified the choice (do you let them kill the girl for a *chance* to get the cure or not) and you simplified the narrative (a deranged man kills scientists working on a cure).

Your entire analogy with the context is completely off, in order for that choice to be a real moral conundrum it SHOULD be presented without any emotional attachment to any party involved.

I'll literally draw a picture:

THIS is an actual moral quandary. Now imagine you start polluting it with moving background stories about that dude on the right or the chick by the lever. You'd turn this into a fucking eintopf, clouding and muddying everything with feelz.

But what if the five people are Nazis?

 

[Terenty]

But what if the five people are Nazis?

What if its one nazi and 5 sjws?

 

[Togukawa]

What if it's only a 50% chance that there's 5 people, and 50% chance that it's weirdly shaped foliage? Is it then ok to kill one person with 100% certainty?

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Plus, Ellie never actually made a decision to die for the (potential) cure. She was unconscious when you link up with the Fireflies, and after they think Joel is contained, they finally say oh by the by, it might hurt her when we rip her brain out. You could argue that, at a minimum, the fireflies and Joel are on similar moral grounds as they both removed any choice from Ellie in the matter but that's about it.

I wouldn't consider Joel to be "removing any choice from Elie" in that scenario as she clearly didn't make the choice to die, so letting her die would actually be the removal of choice from her on Joel's part. He was completely justified in doing what he did, in my view. Also, he was justified in killing the 'doctors'. Joel has spent the entire game killing monsters.

 

[Grimlorn]

Indeed, except for I simplified the choice (do you let them kill the girl for a *chance* to get the cure or not) and you simplified the narrative (a deranged man kills scientists working on a cure).

This is the solution to this moral dilemma.

Spoiler

 

[Mikeal]

Your entire analogy with the context is completely off, in order for that choice to be a real moral conundrum it SHOULD be presented without any emotional attachment to any party involved.

I'll literally draw a picture:

THIS is an actual moral quandary. Now imagine you start polluting it with moving background stories about that dude on the right or the chick by the lever. You'd turn this into a fucking eintopf, clouding and muddying everything with feelz.

 

[toro]

muslims are banning a game in which you can hunt christians ...