I'm amused by the reaction to Abby after 4 years.
Joel deserved to die for what he did. I loved his character but it's a harsh world and the fact that he survived for as long as he did was a miracle. Someone was always out there, ready to kill him.
This is a very common response I see from fans of the games and I just don't buy it at all. Be warned, huge essay incoming.
The first game made it clear that Joel was someone who survived as long as he did due to luck and his own diligence. This was cemented when Joel decides to kill Marlene, specifically stating she would come after him and Ellie if he let her live; he knew the danger of leaving loose ends. Another cool insight into his thoughts is when he reads an anti-government militia note in Pittsburgh and thinks to himself "with that kind of thinking no one wins". In the first game, he was quite scared in going beyond the QZ, not due to cowardice, but due to prudence and caution as he "knew" what was out there. When he meets Henry and Sam, it's also interesting that when Henry asks for their names (after overhearing Ellie call out Joel) Ellie quickly responds and Joel looks like a bit peeved for a second, quickly shrugs it off and asks Henry "how many are with you?". It's a small detail, but again, it shows just how switched on and on-guard he was. He was no simpleton bumbling his way through the wilderness.
The point I'm making is, the game does a decent job at establishing that Joel has got experience under his belt. Is it "miraculous" that he survived for so long? Possibly. But is that the sole cause of his survival? Absolutely not. Saying that Joel should have died because he deserved it doesn't really say much because that feels like it goes against the themes both the first and second games.
I mean, isn't TLOU 2 supposed to be about the power of forgiveness, cycle of revenge all that stuff? Why use a black-and-white justification of "karma" as a way to justify that a character should have died, in a franchise which actively pushes the theme of its characters being multi-faceted and layered? Also, it doesn't make sense when you looked at the facts surrounding Joel's character (like the ones I mentioned), to a reasonable person who had played the first game, Joel dying the way he did was not likely.
This leads into my problems with TLOU 2 in general. I have tried revisiting this game multiple times, with an "open-mind" and whatnot, yet my experience and outlook is the same. If you got 3 hours to spare, I would recommend watching
MacabreStorytelling's video on the second game, it perfectly encapsulates my own thoughts.
But to summarise the video, the main problem with the game, which is what makes it so divisive, is the way it approaches its storytelling. It's almost completely antithetical to the first game. It is larger in scale, it focuses on a larger number of characters and tells a more "ambitious" story by doing so. But most importantly, the biggest difference is that the first game creates its plot and story around its two main characters, whereas the second uses its characters as if they were "cogs in a machine"; they are used to
tell a story and consequently, in service of a broader theme. Go back to 2014-2015 when people only knew of TLOU 1, and just look at the main reason people frequently cited why they loved the first game. Macabre goes over the specific reasons and examples of this in his video.
A lot of people drew comparisons between works like Cormac McCarthy's "The Road", observing that Joel and Ellie were presented as the heart and soul of the first game. That's exactly what I felt when I played the game on launch day in 2013. The game focuses on creating a good story about its characters first and foremost, and through them, it slowly reveals its myriad of themes and messages to you. It's why it's so loved, despite the world being so interesting in its own right, by focusing on just two people in that dangerous, yet beautiful world, there's this cool juxtaposition between the large world filled with all kinds of people and things, and the more personal story of the characters we follow in the game.
The approach the second game takes can be viewed as bold and commendable, but also risky, actively going against the design philosophy of the first. But we don't call it a "risk" for no reason, and in my eyes, the game flops hard by doing so, though I can see why it would succeed in the eyes of others.
I know people meme on the "haters" saying "you just mad cos your favourite character died", but the irony is, many of these people (not all of course) fail to understand the significance of Joel as a character. Like I said, he was part of the heart and soul of the franchise in the first game. And people
knew this even if they can't express it, because let's face it, is your average person going to spent hours contemplating on a videogame they played and write long essays that dissect the game's strengths and weaknesses?
I could write more but I will stop as I've waffled on for long enough.
Ultimately, the second game fails to justify its existence to me. It's certainly not the worst game ever made, and in fact, it's a highly competent 3rd person OTS action-adventure game with some cool level design and setpieces. But seeing just how PERFECT the first game was, especially its ending, I was always skeptical of a sequel and to some level, I can respect the risk it took. But overall, it just came across as unnecessary.
. I wish my rants could be better worded and more profound but I’m just not at that level yet. Maybe I should join a debate club
