Actually. Come 2 Think Of It. Like. Humor Me For A Moment, O Followers Of Mine Who Are Here Solely Because

TLOU meme dump: Joel edition

ARCANE LEAGUE OF LEGENDS: 1x04 - "Happy Progress Day!" ↳ "It wasn't a mishap, she froze up and lost her sh¡t. I could've handled those brats. She's a problem and we all know it."

I can imagine people thinking I hate the game based on how incredibly critical I am of it in my essays and that couldn't be further from the truth. I love this game to pieces. It has been on my mind nearly every day since it came out, it fascinates me, inspires me and has like nothing else that has been released in the past year made me think about my own craft and skills, I have never been this productive and this thrilled about storytelling before. And if I'm being honest, I could write just as many, just as long essays gushing about certain aspects of the game, I just don't think that'd be an interesting read and/or give reason to have interesting conversations. No piece of art is perfect, so me being critical of it is not necessarily a reflection of my overall stance. Again, this game and its story mean the world to me.

This will be my last response to these essays because I don’t think we’ll get to a point where there’s mutual ground and that’s okay lol. I did want to respond though because you offered some valid critiques on my post as well. This won’t be as long as the other for sure (at least I hope not).

You’re correct in that it’s up to interpretation of whether or not Abby feels guilt and if the small moments they provide us with are a indication of that. I can’t help but feel had she had a conversation with someone about guilt, it would have been met with resistance and notions of “so predictable” and not made a difference (not from you specifically. A lot of players of the game would have hated it no matter what because it didn’t live up to what they had in mind). Maybe I'm wrong with this and it would have been well received but no way to know.

As I stated in my previous response, the connection with Lev and Yara seemingly was brought on by them saving her and vice versa. Whether or not she feels obliged to help them because of this, there’s no reason to believe she would have gone back to the WLF after going AWOL. Owen couldn’t go back after Danny. Lev and Yara absolutely wouldn’t make it past the front gates. It goes back to the theory about purpose. If she’s found a new purpose in caring for the two of then, then why would she go back to the WLF? That’s not saying that after 4 years she wouldn’t have befriended anyone. We saw small interactions with a few characters but nothing that would lead us to believe she created deep connections with multiple people that weren’t a part of the Salt Lake Crew. Is it possible? Yes. Was there sufficient evidence given to support this? No. She had a choice though and after 48+ hours of hell and back with Lev and Yara, it doesn’t seem out of the box that she would choose them (Lev,Yara,Owen/Santa Barbara [again pre Mel conversation] over a group that wanted her dead). That ‘you’re my people” line feels like the most obvious indication that her allegiances have changed and that it had something to do with the bond she’d developed with them through their ‘adventures’ (putting that in parentheses because adventures should be fun and not messed up lol).

In no way shape or form did I say you are not allowed to criticize writers. People have every right to criticize. What I said was it’s not cool to resort to personal attacks. Criticizing a story that you find to be poorly written is different than calling the writers talentless and not creative. Bring up whatever issues you have with pacing/character choice/scene structure/lack of thoroughness/etc, but simply calling writers less talented and less creative isn’t conrtsuctive criticism. That’s lobbing personal insults at them, not offering any sort of feedback on their professional choices. That’s where I have issues. Not with offering criticism in general. There is a difference.

As for the theatre, I’m honestly not so sure why you continually dismiss the reality that Abby also had traumatic experiences, not just Lev. No ones trauma is greater than anothers. Trauma is trauma. Nearly everyone in this game with a substantial role in the story has experienced trauma. If we look at their 3 days and limit it to that time frame: Lev lost his sister, had to kill his mother in self defense, and was running from a group he grew up with. Abby was nearly hung, had Manny killed in front of her, and found Owen and Mel killed (Owen being of most importance). Those are just a few examples for each. I never said I didn’t care about her choices and whether or not they were questionable. That’s you assuming. What I did was offer up a possibility that Lev was aware of what would happen upon giving her the map.

Eye for an eye is a concept for retaliation/punishment at its very core so suggesting dhe should have let Joel go because he saved her doesn’t make sense as an eye for an eye scenario. That could be viewed as a reward or a compromise which by definition is not what eye for an eye is about.

The retort to the essay wasn’t intended to have any personal bias so if there were points of that, it wasn’t intentional. My response was based off what the game itself presented and the writing it gave us at face value. The whole point was playing devils advocate with offering counter arguments. I am very much a ‘devils advocate look at things from a neutral perspective’ person because I enjoy discussions.The whole point of me writing it was that aside from the bias, the writing came off as you knew better and that it was your way or the highway. That’s what was mentioned in the response to the Joel essay that I don’t think was posted, that the bias gave off a vibe that wasn’t approachable and that it seemed like an “I know better this is how it is” piece.

As for the add on reblog after the initial post, you are entitled to feel how you do. Once more, I never said that wasn’t allowed. Sort as I echoed above, I’ve pointed out multiple times that the main issue was the tone and how it came across and that it doesn’t necessarily feel like it offers up an environment that would foster a constructive discussion. This game is something lots of people get very emotional about. I’m simply saying if the intent is to write a persusasive essay vs an essay in general, bias and tone could be hurting you instead of helping. But if the intent was to get all the thoughts down on paper and out and not necessarily to try and ‘recruit’ (very loose use of the word), then having the bias/tone/emotion makes more sense. You have a very valid point that perhaps a verbal discussion can work better because some things get lost in translation through writing as it is quite often these days. Again, I enjoy reading different takes on different mediums and seeing that a couple of your essays had popped up in the tags, I went ahead and read them. Keep doing what you’re doing and I look forward to future essays. (this might have ended up just as long as the other, I honestly have no idea lol, my bad but I enjoyed this back and forth!)

I really did too!

And I think it's totally fine for us to not come to an agreement regarding this. I feel like discussions like these (especially about art that tend to be quite subjective) need more of "two people voicing their opinion, having an exchange and the conversation ending with both parties sticking to their point of view and accepting/respecting each other for that".

This discussion, at least for me, has been enriching, entertaining, and challenging even, which is exactly what I'd hoped I'd get out of posting my essay(s) in the first place. So thank you again for being so open-minded, critical, respectful, and for reaching out in the first place!

Regarding my future essays, I will from this point onward put even more effort into being less "high horse"-y and more neutral, as I do of course understand how that would be much more helpful in getting people to engage in an actual conversation/discussion.

I’ll be so miserable without you.

also dont even get me STARTED on how dina goes on and on about dreaming of owning a farmhouse and ellie’s like that’s cool let’s do it and then when ellie mentions spaceships dina is like oh your dumb little space thing! like fucking no thanks. not my gays.

Happy Pride to these two adorable gays!

What's better than this.... guys being gays

joel in p1: experienced survivor, emotionally unavailable, doesn't break easy, smart enough to predict an ambush, hot dilf.

joel in p2: dumbass who saves random people, doesn't even keep his bag or gun on him when doing so, exposes his name to strangers knowing what he did in the past, uwu soft teddy bear who cant remember his 20+ years of knowledge on survival, died as a hot dilf.

Joel did not doom humanity (no matter how much the second game wants you to believe that)

To demonize Joel’s decision at the end of the first game (saving his surrogate daughter’s life) you need to bend over backwards and ignore any and all context the first game gave us with regards to who the Fireflies truly are. Because the truth of the matter is: a) they knocked Joel unconscious while he was trying to revive a young girl b) they drugged Ellie immediately to tear her body apart for their needs c) THEY DID NOT ASK ELLIE FOR PERMISSION to give her life for their cause, they didn’t even tell her she would have to die (Ellie was making plans with Joel after the giraffe scene, “Once we're done, we'll go wherever you want. Okay?”, clearly indicating she had no idea she would have to die) d) they did not let Ellie and Joel see each other to say their goodbyes e) they were about to walk Joel out into the wilderness without any of his gear/resources, which during the zombie apocalypse is a certain death sentence f) they didn’t hold up their end of the bargain (remember how Marlene promised Joel guns in return for delivering Ellie?) So even if you show them as much goodwill as possible, the Fireflies are still a bunch of assholes. If the exact opposite had happened, they let Joel go all on good terms and then he suddenly decided to turn around and murder everyone I would have called him a terrible person, but that is not what happened. As it stands, the Fireflies are shady and questionable at best. But it actually gets worse:

a) the procedure that would 100% kill Ellie had an incredibly low success rate (the doctor mentioned in his recording that every previous operation with other test subjects had failed) b) the same recording mentions cerebrospinal fluid having been extracted, meaning they were capable of performing a non-lethal spinal tab, but they’re unable to perform a non-lethal biopsy or craniotomy on Ellie? (this may seem like nit-picking, but actually further solidifies my point about how incompetent the Fireflies/Abby’s dad were/was) c) to add to their immense incompetence, mere hours after receiving Ellie they decide to IMMEDIATELY KILL THE ONLY PERSON KNOWN TO BE IMMUNE as oppose to keeping her alive for as long as possible to run every single test in existence on her. But let's paint a picture of the best case scenario, which is Jerry, the absolute legend that he is, actually manages to get a vaccine out of Ellie, what happens then? a) How are the Fireflies, who are nearly extinct at this point, supposed to MASS PRODUCE and NATIONWIDE DISTRIBUTE a vaccine? That is logistically impossible. b) More than likely, they would use the vaccine as a bargaining chip against FEDRA (granted, this is more a guess than a fact, but to believe they wouldn’t take advantage of the vaccine in the fight for political power against the government they’ve been fighting for years is beyond naïve). But let’s be even more generous: turns out the Fireflies are the most altruistic resistance group to have ever existed, they actually manage to produce and distribute the vaccine into every last corner of the country, everyone is immune. What now? a) You might be immune to spores and bites, but your immunity doesn’t help you when a clicker rips your throat out or a bloater crushes you to death, the infected can still kill you in numerous other ways. b) The faction wars going on are not gonna disappear overnight. WLF and Seraphites will continue to kill each other by the dozens every day, one could even argue that introducing a vaccine into the conflict would only cause things to escalate further. c) Numerous cannibals, hunters and bandits still roam the country, they will not abandon their practices overnight and they are arguably a much bigger threat than the infected to begin with. Just because everyone is immune does not mean that the world returns to sunshine, rainbows, and flowers. To imply that it would, means being simplistic and naive beyond reason. It should be obvious by now that Ellie’s death WOULD NOT HAVE IMPROVED ANYTHING. The chances of actually getting a vaccine are slim to none, the chances of vaccinating everyone are even more dour, and even then the overall situation would not improve much. With such bad prospects I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice my child either. (I am aware that an argument can be made that none of these factors had an impact on Joel’s decision to save Ellie, yet they’re still crucial when making a judgement about the Fireflies/Abby’s dad). To summarize: a) Abby’s dad was incompetent and a horrible person (his conversation with Abby in the second game tells us that he would not be willing to sacrifice his own child, but if it’s someone else’s it’s a-okay for him). b) The Fireflies were a malicious and incompetent terrorist group with messed up morals. c) No, Joel did not doom humanity. Subsequently, Abby’s quest for revenge was not justified because the Fireflies and her dad were never justified in their actions to begin with. And this is only solidified by the second game having to retcon the hell out of all these arguments I just painstakingly illustrated and explained in order to even attempt to have Abby’s motivation be seen as justified. Only one example being how it was clearly established in the first game that they had MULTIPLE doctors in Salt Lake City (Marlene: “The doctors tell me that the cordyceps, the growth inside her, has somehow mutated.”; Ellie: “She said that they have their own little quarantine zone. With doctors there still trying to find a cure.”). Yet in the second game we are told by

Abby that actually no, turns out her dad was the only doctor that could have developed vaccine. And it doesn't take mental gymnastics to see why the second game takes it upon itself to alter most of the context of the first one: to (retroactively!) condemn Joel. HOWEVER, a sequel doesn’t get to pick and choose which established facts from the first entry it builds upon or what it gets to retroactively declare as non-canon only to have it fit their preferred narrative. Quite frankly, that’s bad writing. A sequel, in order to be considered well-written, has to not only be a natural continuation of the events, but has to stay consistent with the characters and the world that were previously set up. And if you have to alter much of the context to make it look like Joel condemned the world, isn't that the most obvious sign that he never actually did? And all of this effort for just one goal: to justify Abby’s quest for revenge and yet it still wasn’t and here’s why: Joel killed her dad in order to PREVENT HIM FROM KILLING HIS DAUGHTER. Abby on the other hand WILFULLY SLOW TORTURED Joel for what appears to be hours, prolonging his death for as long as possible, all for her own gratification (and we won't mention how she went through with it despite Ellie's crying and pleading). And don’t even try to make the argument about Abby wanting “justice”, Joel didn’t torture her dad out of revenge or for his own gratification - this is not justice, this is simply sadistic. A man killing someone who is about to murder their child in semi-self-defense cannot be compared to someone wilfully slow torturing someone to death for their own gratification, like Jesus, I didn’t think I’d have to spell that one out. I am aware that the second game tries to do whatever it can, including retconning their own original story, to paint Ellie and (especially!) Joel as evil. And for a considerable amount of the player base this actually worked, and while I cannot find it in me to condemn them (we all experience stories differently after all), I reserve the right to reject arguments in defense of Abby such as “all people are forced to do bad things during the apocalypse” and “does context even matter?”. If the only way you can defend/justify Abby's actions is to remove all context and nuance, then your reasoning is built on quicksand.