"Just What I Needed."

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.

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.

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."

Hi there, anon last week who offered some criticism about bias/etc in response to the Joel essay. Was looking forward to your Abby essay and really wanted to be open minded but truthfully you managed to cherry pick the absolute shit out of moments in the game and ignored so many allusions/small nuances/moments that you claim aren’t in the game (Abby showing regret, etc). That take is one of the most biased takes yet that I have read about this game. Also your use of the word retarded to describe Ellie’s questionable decision making with Mel and Owen isn’t cool. If you’re capable of writing an essay like this, you’re capable of finding another word to use instead of that.

But onto the issues with some of the arguments. This is going to be long so buckle up. (I hope it sends in it’s entirety so apologies if it doesn’t). I don’t expect this to be posted, again this is just a criticism to try and point out some bias that I’m seeing coming through. I tried to stay in a linear order of examples you brought up but if I bounce around I apologize. There’s a lot of moments that you give as examples where you would seem to embellish what happened and twist it to fit the narrative that you wanted regarding Abby and her arc.

After Joel’s death, there’s references made to Abby not sleeping and we see that she’s still having nightmares about running into the operating room and finding her dad/finding Lev and Yara. If she truly felt justified in her actions and that she had gotten her revenge, why would she still be having nightmares about this subject? Perhaps she is feeling guilt and didn’t receive any closure from Joel’s death and it’s not until after she knows Yara is okay that we finally see some sort of closure where the nightmare of death turns into a dream. It could be argued that perhaps she’s found a new purpose in life after the end of a 4 year quest and that  through taking care of those that saved her life, she’s been able to move on because of this. There’s also moments during the opening of her half (specifically when we see the mansion scene again but from her view) that after the final blow, there’s no relief. For one or two moments, some of her expression look like she could be contemplating the extent of her own actions. It doesn’t seem like there’s any joy or happiness there.

Next. Expecting Abby to change her view on the Seraphites in two days because of some kids she saved is highly unrealistic. She has conversations with Lev though when they’re making their way up to the sky bridge where they discuss the religion, how the prophets teachings have been skewed over time. Even learning about them, the Seraphites would try to kill her regardless. There’s no reason for her to have a change of heart because she’s met two outliers to their religion. The majority of them still are religious fanatics.

As far as expressing remorse to Ellie for what she did to Joel, Abby didn’t know of Joel’s importance to Ellie in the same way that Ellie didn’t know it was Jerry’s death that Abby sought out vengeance for, not taking away the cure (as stated by Ellie int he theatre confrontation where she states ‘I’m the one you want, there’s no cure because of me’.” This was a really interesting decision on the writers part. Personally I would loved to have seen some sort of revelations with these but I also enjoy the fact that they never know how significantly their lives impacted each other. Abby had to reason to show Ellie remorse because she simply didn’t know the connection. For all she knew, Joel and Ellie could have been a randomly paired patrol group from Jackson. Not a father-daughter like bond.

I do agree with your assessment that perhaps Isaac had something to do with her dark ways. Clearly he has no qualms with brutal tactics and seeing as Abby is consistently referred to as one of the top WLF, it’s not unrealistic to assume that he had a direct hand into grooming her violent ways. That’s not to say she didn’t have a choice, but it’s an interesting concept to explore how he could have shaped the growth of a 16 year old Abby hell bent on revenge.

Owen’s drunk provocation of Abby is an interesting scene because Abby has always relied on Owen to be by her side. To hear his unfiltered thoughts on Joel’s torture could have come as a shock to the system because he has always been straight with her and to have someone as important to her as him paint her brutal actions in such a blunt, disapproving way could have maybe felt like a slight betrayal. There’s no excuse for Owen cheating on Mel, but we see a moment of weakness and vlunerability with the two of them. Not sure why the sex scene gets bashed so much. Whereas Ellie and Dina are allowed to be intimate (granted yes not anywhere near as explicit as Abby and Owen), there seems to be no issue with the former as opposed to the latter. Sex is natural. What’s so traumatizing about the scene? Genuinely curious.

Onto arguments about Seraphite island. You call the line from Yara a throw away line (about how there’s fighting and gun fire from the other way) yet if the conflict has spilled out to where they were, why would they go back that way? Abby trusted Lev and Yara to know a way out because she wasn’t familiar with the island. Why shut down their suggestions when she knows nothing about the layout or inner workings? Regarding Isaac, I don’t think Abby all of a sudden offering to torture a Seraphite would have been an automatic get out of jail free card. Isaac wanted the fight to be over, why would he allow one soldier to take a boat to take a child away for torture? In the grand scheme of things, this doesn’t make sense. Abby could have chosen to go back to the WLF but instead, she chose her new family (Lev). To act like she was best friends with all of the WLF and this means she shouldn’t have killed them once again doesn’t feel realistic. Even Isaac makes a comment about the Salt Lake Crew and how close they are, there’s no reason to believe that she went out of her way to befriend others when she already had her group. Abby more than likely would have gone to SB with Owen and the others (pre Mel conversation) since she was already an enemy of the WLF by that point. There’s no need to call writers less talented/less creative because you didn’t like the story. Resorting to personal attacks on their abilities doesn’t help your arguments. It comes off as petty.

Onto Abby ‘dragging’ Lev to the theater. You’re more than willing to point out Lev’s traumatic experiences but not Abby’s. Lev chose to give Abby the map. He had no reason to, but instead offered it up to her. Lev isn’t stupid. In his interactions with Abby, he shows an understanding of Owen’s importance to her so it’s not out of the box for him to understand the implications of giving her a literal map to the location of the person that had killed the two of them. As for why wouldn’t they give up Abby’s location: Mel was ready to do so and was going to. We know she doesn’t like Abby, figured she was likely dead, and saw a chance to perhaps save the two of them if she gave Ellie what she wanted. Owen cares for Abby and didn’t want to risk the possibility of Ellie finding her, interrupting the conversation before Mel could give any info. Owen approaching Ellie wasn’t wise, but how is his effort to try and deescalate anything other than an attempt to protect both himself and Mel?

Next. Abby did not respond with glee to learning Dina was pregnant. I’m not sure what you think glee is, but there’s nothing happy or joyful about the way she reacted. She’s fueled by blind rage at that point and it’s already been established she’s an eye for an eye type person. Ellie had killed Mel who was pregnant (she’s wearing a coat because there’s a giant ass rainstorm. I’m not sure why her wearing a coat would be so confusing and out of character?) and Dina happening to be pregnant would be an eye for an eye in Abby’s view. Does this make it right? No. But she was not jumping for joy and oh so happy to find that out.

Not sure what the qualms are with something as small as collections cards vs coins. It’s a video game. There was a chance to add more collectibles for a trophy so why not? This seems like a detail to just pick at just because you can. Giraffe/zebra, we knew in the first game wild animals were running around. Why is it out of the box for a group LIVING in SLC to make a hobby of watching them? Again, seems nitpicky. A father/father figure teasing a child about a relationship. Isn’t this just a dad thing? Again, feels nitpicky and serves no purpose as a legitimate critique. The museum/aquarium, are people not allowed to explore and have things they’re intersted in?’ These little details you throw in serve no real purpose other than to nitpick and are basing this off an emotional response instead of trying to use logic regrding game mechanics/achievements/explanations/etc.

Im sure there’s things I’m missing or that I forgot to mention but this has become quite long. As a wrap up, it feels like you truly haven’t tried to look at the game from a neutral perspective. Perhaps you really have tried, but that doesn’t really show in your essays. It shows as still having a strong bias towards anything that isn’t complimentary of Ellie or Joel and their stories. I do enjoy reading different perspectives on the game and having discussions, but I would still find it hard to approach and have a thoughtful discussion because there seems to be no openness and the vibe that you know the story better than the writers do. That paired with insults flung at the writers makes it feel like nothing more than a spiteful rant for not living up to your expectation rather than a constructive critique. I look forward to further essays and hope that perhaps the tone can become a bit more neutral in them. Have a great evening.

First of all, I wanna say thank you for reaching out and offering some critique, of course that is what I am hoping for (I'm not writing a 4500 word essay only to have it not be read and discussed), so again thank you for that. The next thing, you are absolutely right about the use of the word "retarded", I'll change that as soon as I posted this response. Regarding the cherry picking, I yet again have to agree with you. Of course I picked scenes that serve as (for me the most fitting) examples to support my claim/stance. I think you would agree that talking about every single scene of this game, especially in a single essay, is near impossible. So I instead reduced the list of my arguments to what I believed to be most crucial ones in informing my opinion (thus hoping they would also be most convincing to the reader). Before I go on to react to the specific arguments you make, and I had hoped I worded my essay in a way that that becomes clear, that essay is an outline of my thoughts in a way, it is me saying: this is my opinion/position/stance and these are reasons x, y, z of why I have that opinion. Subsequently, it is neither a definitive statement of any kind nor is it a critique to people who feel differently than me. I repeatedly say "in my point of view", "for me", "I expected", as well as giving room for other interpretations (I literally state that other interpretations are possible, and then went on to explain why I interpreted it the way I did). Which leads me neatly to your first argument. For you, Abby's nightmares read as an expression of guilt as well as other instances, allusions and nuances as you say, that could be interpreted this way. But that is exactly my critique. Interpretation is something so subjective and all these supposed allusions (again that is up to the individual's interpretation) are so incredibly vague that there is no way we could ever make a definitive statement about what they actually allude to. You reading it as guilt concerning Joel is absolutely and 100% justified, but me not doing so is just as legitimate. And Abby didn't strike me as feeling guilty the first time I played, and she still didn't the tenth time I did. Additionally, a glance that lasts a few seconds (and could be interpreteted in a marriott of ways) is unfortunately not substantial and concrete enough to balance out all the concrete evidence (Abby's actual actions) I have of her being a questionable person. This is one of the reasons why I needed Abby to have an actual conversation, to verbalize what's going on in her head. And it could have been with any one person, honestly, it didn't need to be Ellie. And I 100% agree with you there that we'd have to tweak a lot of the rest of the game if we were to arrive at my proposed alternative ending, since Abby wouldn't have the information needed (none of my proposed fixes work in isolation btw, so this goes for the Isaac confrontation as well). But it instead could have been a conversation with Lev, or Owen during that scene on the boat for instance (which I absolutely adore, by the way, it's one of my favourite scenes in the entire game). Owen's heartfelt monolgue could have been the perfect stepping stone for Abby to reveal her inner conflicts, thoughts, and motivations. But instead we get a sex scene. My issues here lies with the fact that they decided to show as much as they did for pure shock value (as opposed to implying it like they did with Ellie and Dina). But this is only issue #273 I have, so let's move on to the more important stuff. And this is where it gets interesting to me personally: You argue that Abby living with the WLF for the past four years would not lead her to having a strong enough connection to her comrades to not be willing to kill them. How is her connection to Lev so strong then after just 48 hours? Looks a lot like cherry picking to me. And this next argument has to be my favourite: You don't have to critize the writers just because you didn't like the story. Have you considered that I didn't like the story because it was

poorly written? I have no idea why people put writers on such a pedestal. It is their literal job. And when they don't do their job well I have the right to critize them for it. Abby dragging Lev to the theatre is and will remain inexcusable to me. First of all, Abby's "traumatic" experiences pale next to Lev's, but on top of that she's an adult and Lev a literal child. If you don't care that she's dismissive of his feelings and struggles here, because she prioritizes her own, that's your right. But I find it horrendous. "Glee" might have been the wrong word to choose here, but you still understand what I was trying to express. Her reaction to receiving that information is still messed up and concerning. And if Abby is indeed an eye for an eye type of character, and that is the supposed motivation for her to want to kill Dina, why then did Joel saving her life not lead to her letting him live in return? That would have been the eye for an eye solution, you saved my life so I will spare yours. And yet. Now, as the second to last thing, I want to address the critique that I do not come off as neutral enough. And I am absolutely aware of that. I had a second person proofread my essay before I posted it and they also let me know (even though I was aware of it beforehand) that as a reader one can tell that I am getting increasingly more frustrated as the essay goes on. And for a while I thought of going over the essay again to fix it to try to sound more neutral, objective and unemotional (like I did with my other two essays, that still aren't entirely neutral or free of personal bias by any means, as no text expressing opinions and feelings ever truly can be), but I ultimately decided against it. Not only is this a game specifically designed to elicit strong emotions, and pointing out all the issues I have did frustrate me, so why should I try to play that down? But also, why am I the only person expected to be completely rid of personal bias or emotions? Why are my arguments only seen as valid or legitimate if I present them in precisely the one way that suits you best? How am I expected to anticipate any one reader's interpretation and thus emotional reaction to my words and consciously construct my essay in a way which aims to prevent said reaction? No utterance, especially regarding opinions and feelings, is entirely neutral or free of personal bias. Your critique of my essay is filled with personal bias as well as it is emotionally charged. Does not take away from the legitimacy of your stance and/or arguments though, does it?

My priorities when I write these essays are: accumulating enough strong arguments to support my position, structuring them in a logical way as to assist the reader in recreating my thought process (to increase comprehension), wording it in a way that is as thorough while also as efficient as possible, attempting to word it in a way that is as neutral and objective as I can be (the exception being my Abby essay as I have just explained). And since I am not dismissive, condescending, or accusatory towards people who might disagree with me, I don't see a problem with being emotionally charged every now and then.

Now, finally I do wanna thank you again for voicing critique. I do appreciate it a lot. Not only for reading my essays, but again trying to look at them critically and informing me about issues you have found within my writing. It continues to force me to look at my own opinion with a critical eye and more often than not I have found myself persuaded by compelling arguments presented by people like you. And while you said you wouldn't be interested in having an open discussion/conversation, I would have to disagree, but I think an oral conversation would be more fruitful since I do get the feeling a lot might get lost by having it be a written conversation.

hey i played tlou and left behind recently so heres these two lil gals

"I will find a way."

what if 🤔 you defeated me in battle 😔 and when you tilted my head up with your blade beneath my chin 🗡️ we accidentally kissed 💋😳

Arthur x Karen

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.

Me playing The Last of Us: Left Behind for the 7th time: but what if this time Riley doesn't get bitten???

Me every time: