Top
440°

The Last of Us Part 2's Ending Doesn't Ruin the Original. It Completes It

Analyzing The Last of Us Part 2's controversial ending, and how it brings the original game full circle.

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community11d ago
The story is too old to be commented.
lelo2play11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

NOT THIS.

Just kidding. I really don't care...

mandf11d ago

Troll yes it completes it.

11d ago
SyntheticForm11d ago

Agreed.

Joel's arc is complete, and his purpose served and part played. Congrats to the writers and Troy for making him so compelling.

We'll see what ND does or doesn't do with the rest, but I have complete confidence in them. Masterfully done.

-Foxtrot11d ago

His arc was to get bashed in and tortured in the first hour of the sequel then spat on? Throwing his character away like a cummy tissue.

Yeah...I don't think so.

Our Joel would not go after and save one stranger from a Horde of infected, wander into a room full of unknown people, let his guard down, invite them back to their town and use his real name, the same guy who could smell a Hunter ambush from a mile off amongst other things.

That was not Joel's arc, no way in hell.

I mean sure like it, but applauding it, saying it's masterfully done? Way over the top.

Imalwaysright11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

They made him compelling in the original and in the second they did to him exactly what was done to Luke Skywalker in the latest Stars Wars trilogy. They disrespected Joel so much that the character was pretty much retconned. It wasn't masterfully done, it was forced in order to serve the narrative of this game as was trying to make Ellie the villain and Abby some kind of tragic hero. It was all forced because that's what Neil Druckmann set out to do: subvert expectations something I already proved to you in another discussion but I don't mind posting the link again.

ziggurcat11d ago

"His arc was to get bashed in and tortured in the first hour of the sequel then spat on?"

You're out of touch if you believe that his actions from the first game wouldn't catch up to him.

It also sounds like you really didn't understand the situation surrounding that event, and you're not really considering their POV. They don't have the context of things from the first part of the story, all they know is he had murdered Abby's father, and in their eyes, he was a terrible human being that deserved to be tortured/killed for what he had done.

"Our Joel would not go after and save one stranger from a Horde of infected..."

How do you know that? You don't think Joel would help out another human being who was clearly in distress? Also, he didn't "go after one stranger." She was there, in distress, and they helped her out of her situation. They did what they probably would have done for anyone - help them out when they were clearly in trouble with the infected. You can't be so foolish as to assume they would have seen someone in distress and thought, "oh that person is just there because they are out to lure me into a trap and torture me, so screw 'em."

"... wander into a room full of unknown people, let his guard down, invite them back to their town and use his real name, the same guy who could smell a Hunter ambush from a mile off amongst other things."

You can't pretend to know exactly what Joel would have done in that situation or presume he would have done anything differently.

Everything you've just said really just shows how you don't get it.

SyntheticForm11d ago

@Im

You've proved absolutely nothing except that you're vehement in your misguided opinion. Neil 'did' subvert the common trope of everyone living happily ever after, and that's all he "subverted." You already made the flat-falling Luke comparison. Didn't track then and it isn't now.

The first game and second game are one story. That's what a lot of people aren't acknowledging, and I believe they're only doing so in order to make this retconn/forced nonsense argument, because they just don't like what's transpired. Joel wasn't ruined; the story was merely continued. Neither The Last of Us or Part II are self contained, and none of the occurrences are insular. Again, all one story.

It's very clear why people feel the way they do; they simply don't like the story. But, there's no error or contrivance, just a story that disappointed certain people.

Obelisk9211d ago

@Foxtrot
The reason of Joel being so friendly is even explained by the game, in a note you find with Ellie.

Jackson village was striving to regain humanity by trusting strangers a little bit more.

ThereGoThatManQ10d ago

@Foxtrot

You are always on here bashing TLOU2 please do something else with your time.

It’s an amazing story with hard parts to swallow but that doesn’t mean you turn tail and run from it.

You must’ve not played it because it is a complete story that I feel is probably one of the best ever in a video game series

Imalwaysright10d ago

Here's the link again then https://www.gq-magazine.co....

"we’re gonna double down and we’re gonna expose what this ending means. To take some of the things that people hold sacred and just... dismantle it.” meaning let's shit on what people loved about the original game.

"You already made the flat-falling Luke comparison. Didn't track then and it isn't now."

Then try to counter what foxtrot has said about how Joel found himself in the situation that led to his death. Let's see how that moment was "masterfully" done and how it made sense when taking in consideration how Joel was characterized in the original game.

-Foxtrot10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

ThereGoThatManQ

And people like you are here defending it to the high f****** heavens ALL THE TIME so WHATS THE ISSUE? Seriously crying about one person doing something when you are doing the same

Besides like I say every time it’s the story, everything else is fine

It’s attacking one thing that people like yourself are over praising because of what? The respect for ND, the 7 year wait, because it’s a Sony exclusive. It’s suddenly not allowed to be criticised. Jesus.

BU BU BUT YOU MUSTN'T HAVE PLAYED IT

Spare me the bullshit please. It’s the shittiest counterpoint you guys can make.

@Obelisk92

"The reason of Joel being so friendly is even explained by the game, in a note you find with Ellie"

Yeah. What a bullshit excuse

https://i.redd.it/oxe2q8rpr...

ziggurcat10d ago

@foxtrot

It's fine to be critical, but those criticisms render themselves moot when you've shown that you completely miss the point.

Obelisk9210d ago (Edited 10d ago )

@Foxtrot

Jesus man calm down. No need to be so salty.

I don't think that the 20 years off camera can be comparable to the 5 years of Joel with Ellie. You can easily see that Ellie changed Joel.
Also, I can't see why he couldn't strive to change as well, in an effort to be more likeable to Ellie.

Anyway you can have a different opinion, but don't be so mean with that tone. It makes your reasons seem less credible.

SyntheticForm10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

@Iam

Try to counter? Are you challenging me to fight someone else instead of making your own point? That's so ballsy.

Joel has put his trust in plenty of people; Henry, Bill, all of Jackson Community to name a few. That's your argument? That's your big 'a-ha!' gotcha play; that it's out of character for Joel to trust anyone?

Not to mention that fact that Joel's trusting of Abby was a spur of the moment occurrence. Joel was in the area and saw Abby in danger. For all Joel knew she was a potential ally; an ally that could help them in 'their' current situation.

People are attempting to assign characteristics and a mindset to Joel that simply aren't there and aren't supported. Joel was a hardass in the first game, yes, but he 'did' trust people, and it's entirely possible and sensible that he became more tolerant of strangers during life in Jackson.

You don't like what happened - period - that's why you're upset. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense, or that it's contrived, or that it's forced, or any of the other claims you're making.

Your arguments are poor, as are his. Check out some of -Fox's other doozies right now in other discussions. He's the last person of all opponents of the game I'd defer to if 'I' was an opponent of the game. They're all shortsighted and lacking context.

Imalwaysright10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

"it's entirely possible and sensible that he became more tolerant of strangers during life in Jackson."

So he just forgot the person HE was for 20+ years wich is why he didn't outright trust strangers? Completely forgot the world he lives in? Oh how masterfully done from Naugthy dog!

"During his life on Jackson" Wich we barely know anything about but you know what's funny about your reply? Is that you confirmed that TloU 2 Joel isn't the same Joel we knew from the original and all you could do to explain how the character was changed was the generic response. One that doesn't make sense because if there is something that is very patent in TloU 2 is that its world is as dangerous as it has ever been.

Yes, you're right I don't like that it happened and I think it's safe to say that the majority didn't but since it had to happen at the very least make it in a way that respects who Joel was.

SyntheticForm10d ago

@Iam

Now you're just grasping.

You're trying to make a statue out of Joel; saying that he could only possibly behave one way; that he couldn't grow more trusting over time, that he could never possibly let his guard down, or that he couldn't grow in his humanity. You're restricting him to a very narrow, utterly distrusting man who's only interested in self-preservation and who'd never break with these character rules 'you've' imposed.

That was Bill; not Joel. Bill was the unmovable one. Bill was the distrusting one. Bill was of the philosophy that caring for and looking after others was only good for one thing - getting yourself killed.

You still haven't addressed how he trusted the people in Boston, Tess, Henry, or anyone else. You sidestepped my point to make another poor one of your own that doesn't hold up. Your rigid view of Joel's character isn't anywhere close to who he actually is, and it certainly isn't canon.

frostypants10d ago

@ziggurcat there is no POV where torturing someone isn't completely effed up.

ziggurcat10d ago

@frosty

That's not what I said.

Redrex700010d ago

its nice they ended his story with a friendly game of golf
i dont get why people are upset :P

Imalwaysright10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

SyntheticForm

Oh the irony..." 'you've' imposed." I'm not imposing anything, the original game did as that is who Joel was. He was an established character and neither ND or you gave ANY reason whatsoever as to why he somehow became more trusting of strangers. You're the one grasping, you're the one imposing your assumptions on the character.

"that he couldn't grow more trusting over time, that he could never possibly let his guard down, or that he couldn't grow in his humanity"

That's who he was for 20+ years.

"trusting over time"

"never possibly let his guard down"

??? Have you seen the world he lives in? Why would he somehow change and all of the sudden start trusting complete strangers for no reason whatsoever? Oh wait, you already gave your generic response! There was nothing masterful about what ND did with Joel's arc.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 10d ago
Mr_cheese11d ago

In my opinion, and that's the only one I can give, i loved the game from start to finish.

I have no issues with the diversity of the characters or the story that was told. I smiled, i hated,i loved and i cried ( a few times).

The story is revenge driven by love and ultimately saved through forgiveness.

For me, it was a cinematic masterpiece with an ending fight which knocked MGS4 off the top spot for me. Im still haunted by all the moments and yet ive came out the other end with new emotional attachments to the likes of Lev.

Yui_Suzumiya10d ago

Finally someone else saw the similarities with the ending fight to that of Snake and Ocelot fight of MGS4. Both are immeasurably epic.

Obelisk9211d ago

I find this analysis to be a little, just a little more deep and credible than "Ending is dumb, revenge bad, script ends with yep".

DonDon300011d ago

It's actually not that deep. Check out the comments in the website's page as there are some good counter arguments, and I also tried to give my own, but there are some better ones than I could even conjure. The article is essentially saying that Ellie's need to forgive Joel parallels the need to forgive Abby. But that's ridiculous because both Joel's death and the introduction of Abby's character were contrived just to make Ellie into this (out-of-character) person who is "need" of a lesson on forgiveness. That's all well and good for Part II, but it doesn't do justice to the ending of Part 1 since Ellie never needed to forgive in part 1. It's a contrived story that just drags on beyond the ambiguous ending of the first in ordrr to manufacture a crisis within Ellie's psyche by turning her into a villainous character only for Naughty Dog to pat themselves on the back with a preachy message about forgiveness onto a character (Ellie) who never needed this lesson in the first place. They just lazily placed Joel, Abby, Tommy and Ellie as props for a story on forgivness that never needed telling (if not for the contrived/forced setup that turned Ellie into a broken villain only so ND can congratulate themselves for turning around said contrived broken villain and make her forgiving. I'm not gullible enough to find meaning in such forced storytelling and poorly strewn character motives that were only written to force a character into needing to be taught a lesson on forgiveness (which Ellie never had an issue with in the first game). The only story it compliments is the insular one of Part II. It does nothing for Part I.

Mr_cheese11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

From the ending of part 1, you could see in her eyes that she did not believe Joel. The trust was broken at this point.

Obelisk9211d ago (Edited 11d ago )

Ellie never had an issue with forgiveness in the first game?
Dude, it was literally the last frame of the game where Ellie was visibly doubtful of what joel was saying. Just by seeing that, you would know that the sequel would talk about her having a conflict by knowing the truth in the end.
The Part II had to be a forgiveness tale. It was written in the first game's finale.

Veneno11d ago

Well said. This could have been a full on ND emotional powerhouse if they made the themes into another game that wasn't Last of Us. It does feel contrived. But if it had been done with new characters in a new scenario within the TLoU universe it wouldn't have felt so contrived. Or like I said, a different game altogether.

But I still love Tlou 2 even if it doesn't hit as hard as part 1. I can't wait to play again when PS4 Pro is back in stock. Can't wait to be blown away again by the technical masterpiece this game is in 4k.

DonDon300010d ago

Doubting Joel and having issues with forgiveness are two different things

bloop10d ago

@DonDon3000: Hit the nail on the head and couldn't have said it better myself.

Obelisk9210d ago

They are two different things but they can, and should, be considered consequential.

It fits for me that the ending of the first game leads to this story. I don't find it contrived.

While I agree with you that the characters take a very different evolution than in the first one, I don't see why they shouldn't anyway. It's a different story, a lot of years have passed, Ellie turned into an adult.

I see your point, I just disagree.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 10d ago
SunGod11d ago

While I agree in principle...I kinda hope it doesn't, as I'd like a Part 3!!

11d ago Replies(2)
Vx_11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

Apart from the unnecessary Feminism and social agendas.. this game was is a masterpiece, the gameplay the gfx the soundtracks the word building the acting and story is fantastic.

Start with the quest full of ravage and anger, then to more hate feelings by forcing you to play the person you want to kill the most, then back to get your ultimate awaited revenge, but then it asks you to let go and forgive...freaking an Emotional Roller coaster!!

Ppl will say, yah but the ending doesn’t make sense after Eille brutally killed all those ppl then she let go out of Abby.

Well, for once this is a game... secondly, you can actually just sneak past most enemies and only forcefully kill about 4 from the Wolves (2of which by accident and 1 was self defense ) .. oh and a dog.

So the ending makes perfect sense.

shepherdzeMan11d ago

Yes, it completely destroys it.

Gatsu11d ago

The ending is excellent.

Yui_Suzumiya10d ago

Best ending I've ever played in a game after 30 years of gaming.

shepherdzeMan10d ago

WTF were you playing in those 30 years!

RandomPolishGuy10d ago

Tetris has better ending than this.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 10d ago