I don't think any of that is "thriving"- at best it teaches violent, selfish sociopathy that only perpetuates the terrible world they currently live in. This is beyond just basic self-defense.Eva Yojimbo wrote:It's not just being good with a gun. Being able to survive everything she went through was more than just being good with a gun. Getting Joel out of the university, nursing him to health, having to hunt for her food, having to think on her feet after she's captured by David, being able to get away from him... how many adults would be capable of doing that? I mean, I get there are different types and levels of maturity, but one of the main goals of raising children is to teach them to survive/thrive on their own, and Ellie is very much capable of that, and even beyond that given that she also takes care of Joel.
I... honestly can't believe you're making a comparison between Joel and Kony. Joel isn't recruiting kids and turning them into soldiers in order to fight in a holy war for a cult where he's the messiah. Him teaching Ellie to use a gun/fight was mostly out of necessity given their situation.
I don't think Kony is that ridiculous of a comparison at all. The end of the game is Joel abducting Ellie from a hospital and feeding her propaganda about how he ended up with her ("The Fireflies have stopped looking for you, they don't need a cure" etc.). He's already more or less turned Ellie into a child soldier (Just look at the list of skills and accomplishments you've outlined above).
It just sets off warning bells for me. I wouldn't be surprised if Last of Us II: Attack of the Fungus Clones really makes an effort to discern the differences between Ellie and Joel, and specifically if she's going to ultimately follow in his footsteps and continue his legacy or ultimately reject it and him. Here's hoping for the latter.
The "kill or killed" attitude that characters like Joel espouse is just thinly veiled fascistic ideology- that's what makes the world of TLOU so terrible, this downplaying of empathy and kindness toward others as somehow a sign of weakness, not the zombies or decaying concrete or whatever.Yes, in a normal world she should have stability and support from a loving family, gone to school until she was 18, then either gone to college or got a job. TLOU isn't a normal world. The parameters for what maturity means will vary depending on the world and society you're in. A good chunk of what we'd call "mature adults" wouldn't be able to survive in the world of TLOU because our definitions of maturity is predicated on the society we've set up. In our world, being able to manage a credit card is a more valuable survival skill than being able to shoot Clickers in the head.
Even in the game's prologue, before Stock Daughter #1 is killed, Joel is already ignoring the cries of help and his neighbors and such, encouraging Tommy to drive on past them. The "we need to survive!!!!!" excuse is just a thin rationalization (And keeping Ellie along in the ending provides perfect rationalization for that), not much just different than Walter White cooking meth "for his family". It's never really been about staying alive for Joel, just like Walt was only a drug kingpin for himself.
Tommy's society is hardly a coded as a military state (How could it even be one when they've only been there for like a week?). If any setting in the game is a military complex its the city you start the game out in, where people are being literally shot in the streets (It's one of the first things the game shows you for a reason). You don't really see such things at the powerplant.I think to say such things exist in TLOU is pretty tenuous. Pretty much everyone we meet is fighting for survival or living in a kind of totalitarian nightmare. Even Tommy, whom you suggest they should've stayed with, is hardly ideal; it's basically a military complex that's regularly raided by enemies. I fail to see how that's safe and stable. Perhaps it's better than many alternatives, but I guarantee that for him/them to survive the children are also going to be growing up quite fast and learning how to use guns.
What is Joel's plans for Ellie after the ending of the game? What are they even going to do?I don't know how much Joel intentionally "relied" on Ellie. They're trying to get across country with tons of enemies in their way. Without a gun, Ellie is nothing but a liability. With one she can at least help. It's less that Joel's "relying" on her and more that she's helping rather than hurting.
Either they're becoming scavengers themselves, or he's taking her back to his "home" to continue the kind of work he was doing beforehand. The kind of work that made them "shitty people" in Tess' eyes.
It's not even a cure they're developing, it's a vaccine, and a vaccine won't get rid of the fungus zombies that already exist (Or make you immune to being physically killed by them), won't recivilize the bandits and raiders running around etc. This is to say nothing of the logistics of actually mass producing and distributing a vaccine, let alone whether they could even create the vaccine in the first place (TLOU fans seem to particularly debate this last part. I tend to think they could at least create one vaccine, because otherwise the Joel's choices in the ending are just robbed of too much dramatic power).The notion that they should've never gone on the mission to begin with... the world has gone to hell because of a virus, you've found the only person who's immune and may hold the key to a cure, and the right thing is to just lock her up without even trying to get her to people who could possibly create a cure? That seems even more selfish and fucked up then what ends up happening. I get why Joel does what he does in the end, but to not even try at all?
A vaccine alone won't fix the broken society. Creating a new society of people that actually adapt to the existence of fungus zombies are how people will live in the long run. This is what Tommy and co. are trying to do.
Of course it's not going to be perfect transition, but it is still better than endless cycle of killing and raiding that only perpetuates itself. Can Joel even conceive of an alternative to his violent life style?
I didn't say they were MORE prone than others, that's a massive misread of what I wrote. I said they were "very susceptible". Sucide is second leading cause of death of in people age 10-24.I don't see why she wouldn't be conscious of what that entails. I'm not sure why you think young people would be more prone to suicide idealization than others.
This is to say nothing of Ellie not only being an LGBT youth (According to that link LGBT youth are three times more likely than straight kids to contemplate suicide but also having survivor's guilt This latter aspect IIRC is more prevalent in the DLC than the main game but still comes up in the latter, and I think whether Ellie can make an informed whether decision or whether or not a desire for death is just itself a manifestation of some kind of depression or guilt becomes a very relevant question.
Final cutscene of the game even drives the survivor's guilt point home.
Ellie: Hey, wait. Back in Boston -- back when I was bitten -- I wasn't alone.
My best friend was there. And she got bit too. We didn't know what to
do. So...she says "Let's just wait it out. Y'know, we can be all poetic
and just lose our minds together." I'm still waiting for my turn.
Ellie: Her name was Riley and she was the first to die. And then it was Tess.
And then Sam.
Joel: None of that is on you.
Ellie: No, you don't understand.
Joel: I struggled for a long time with survivin'. And you-- No matter what,
you keep finding something to fight for. Now, I know that's not what you
want to hear right now, but it's--
Ellie: Swear to me. Swear to me that everything you said about the Fireflies
How can you look at a line like "I'm still waiting for my turn" and think that's at all the sign of a healthy mind? She's not saying something like "Oh I'm going to live on for my friends, build a good life in their memory" or anything along those lines, its exactly the opposite. She already wants "her turn" out of guilt.
While its true that the rate is lower in the 10-14 years age range, suicide rates massive spike up once you get to 15-24 year old range specifically, and since you thankfully pointed out for us that Ellie is 14, she she's entering that higher range soon. It's not a huge stretch of the imagination that suicidal 15 year olds were contemplating it beforehand.Given the suicide rate is so low among kids/early-teens, and given what Ellie's already gone through to survive, and given that nobody is trying to convince her to sacrifice her life for "the greater good," I don't see why you think she wouldn't be capable of considering that and coming to an unbiased (as possible) decision.
There's also the actual in-game dialogue to consider.
Point is that such a "greater good" argument WOULD work on Ellie. Otherwise why does this entire segment of dialogue exist? They don't even have stock line of Joel telling Marlene that she's wrong for thinking Ellie would want to die.Marlene: You can't save her. Even if you get her out of here, then what? How
long before she's torn to pieces by a pack of clickers? That is if she
hasn't been raped and murdered first.
Joel: That ain't for you to decide.
Marlene: It's what she'd want. And you know it. Look...
[She starts lowering her gun.]
Marlene: You can still do the right thing here. She won't feel anything.
Maybe these particular people didn't use that argument on Ellie specifically. Who's to say the next group of people won't?
I guess I'll just summarize my POV on this topic here: It's a bad thing if Ellie is only making the decision because of some kind of death wish and not because she truly believes it will help humanity- taking time to get older, experience more of life, and hopefully get out from the negative influence of a monster like Joel should give her time to actually think about what she really wants (Somehow I doubt Last of Us II will end with her dying a messiah-esque death). This in addition to the notion that the development of the vaccine being able to save humanity is an incredibly sketchy idea at best.I'm also curious as to why you think it would clearly be better for him to "explain" that she shouldn't throw her life away. If someone wanted to sacrifice themselves to save humanity, I don't see why that's innately a bad thing. About the worst you can say is that she'd really just be sacrificing herself for a CHANCE (not a guarantee) to save humanity.
Wildly blowing up to thrash that dude's house at the very least is a terribly immature way to approach that. Can't say I like the idea that facing the sorceresses alone is somehow good- I know my ass would be calling up the Ghostbusters and whoever else I could find before going to such a meeting, just for backup.Eva Yojimbo wrote:Well, sure, the people who are there to support you should try to step in when you are making terrible decisions, but what genuinely terrible decisions is Ciri making? Also, I think part of the difficulty in this is being able to know what are terrible decisions and what aren't.
The snowball thing I suppose is more dumb on Geralt's end.
Ultimate bad decision that Ciri can make though is joining the Witchers, especially if her motivation is to help people. At least that one can be prevented.
You guys and your albums...(As long as he's back when the new Taylor Swift album is released I'll be happy. :)
Hmm, it seems there's a "Post icon" you can attach to a post every time you click to reply to a thread. I must have selected one on accident.Pitters knew you were fiery about our disagreement. ;)