I guess when I sit and think about it, the problem that looms larger than the game itself is the morally lazy idea that all violence has to be judged with the same weights, which ends up creating a ground so shaky that nobody could ever say something was right or wrong. The best example of this is the ending of the first game, where Joel actually makes what could be the most justifiable and least morally confusing decision in the entire game: kill the people who are ready to murder a defenseless child.
For this to be weighed ex post facto as some kind of deep, murky moral abyss is not only lazy, it is immoral itself. If the story cannot bring itself to say that engaging in violence in the defense of an anesthetized teenager -- who is about to be murdered and have her brain harvested -- is okay, then as far as I'm concerned it cannot say anything of value at all. We should not trust a word that comes out of its mouth.
The counter argument here is that Abby doesn't care, that she is acting out of emotion and she just wants revenge. If we grant this is true, what is it saying about her character? That she doesn't care that her parents were killed to prevent them from committed child murder? Okay. She's a fucking moron, then. What fun is it to play as a fucking moron? But worse, to give Abby a chance in the story (to be "fair" to her character) is to actually be unfair to player -- why should any decent person give a flying fuck what it is like to play as someone so fucking stupid and ultimately evil? What's to be gained?
"Violence begets violence!" is therefore hurled at the player as a lazy shibboleth. Apart from being untrue (anyone who has ever punched a bully in the nose and successfully prevented further bullying, or anyone who has defended their home from a break-in, can attest to the uselessness of this idiotic phrase), it's not even useful as a rhetorical teaching tool because sometimes the chain of violence is perfectly justified, and sometimes it is not. It is sometimes the case where being violent is the correct course of action. Joel had a case, Abby did not. End of story.
Ellie's story is perhaps more interesting and certainly more nuanced, but she just seems to be your garden-variety sociopath who is now addicted to combat and killing. Okay. The issue is, her wanting to seek revenge for Joel is mirrored against Abby's desire for revenge re: her parents, as if both parties have a similar level of grievance. If you believe that revenge is a morally justifiable course of action, then certainly the guilt/innocence of the party in question has to enter into the equation and we're back to square one: Ellie's actions would in some sense be more justifiable -- perhaps even more "moral" -- than Abby's because she is avenging Joel, who let's remember did the right thing.
Ellie is obviously unhinged and suffering from some pathology, up to and including PTSD. And while her individual story may be more interesting, the moral arc of the story is not; it is, in fact, the same shit you've heard over and over again about violence: it's all bad, all the time, don't think about it, if you question it you're a moral monster, and hey did you hear MOVIE STAR CLAPPED BACK at her detractors???
For this to be weighed ex post facto as some kind of deep, murky moral abyss is not only lazy, it is immoral itself. If the story cannot bring itself to say that engaging in violence in the defense of an anesthetized teenager -- who is about to be murdered and have her brain harvested -- is okay, then as far as I'm concerned it cannot say anything of value at all. We should not trust a word that comes out of its mouth.
The counter argument here is that Abby doesn't care, that she is acting out of emotion and she just wants revenge. If we grant this is true, what is it saying about her character? That she doesn't care that her parents were killed to prevent them from committed child murder? Okay. She's a fucking moron, then. What fun is it to play as a fucking moron? But worse, to give Abby a chance in the story (to be "fair" to her character) is to actually be unfair to player -- why should any decent person give a flying fuck what it is like to play as someone so fucking stupid and ultimately evil? What's to be gained?
"Violence begets violence!" is therefore hurled at the player as a lazy shibboleth. Apart from being untrue (anyone who has ever punched a bully in the nose and successfully prevented further bullying, or anyone who has defended their home from a break-in, can attest to the uselessness of this idiotic phrase), it's not even useful as a rhetorical teaching tool because sometimes the chain of violence is perfectly justified, and sometimes it is not. It is sometimes the case where being violent is the correct course of action. Joel had a case, Abby did not. End of story.
Ellie's story is perhaps more interesting and certainly more nuanced, but she just seems to be your garden-variety sociopath who is now addicted to combat and killing. Okay. The issue is, her wanting to seek revenge for Joel is mirrored against Abby's desire for revenge re: her parents, as if both parties have a similar level of grievance. If you believe that revenge is a morally justifiable course of action, then certainly the guilt/innocence of the party in question has to enter into the equation and we're back to square one: Ellie's actions would in some sense be more justifiable -- perhaps even more "moral" -- than Abby's because she is avenging Joel, who let's remember did the right thing.
Ellie is obviously unhinged and suffering from some pathology, up to and including PTSD. And while her individual story may be more interesting, the moral arc of the story is not; it is, in fact, the same shit you've heard over and over again about violence: it's all bad, all the time, don't think about it, if you question it you're a moral monster, and hey did you hear MOVIE STAR CLAPPED BACK at her detractors???
Last edited:
