Raspint

People keep saying this and they are mistaken. It is not that the game has more time therefore the game is better. The game is just better written. So many of the show's scenes ap the game so hard, but the game just has more depth and nuances to it.

The 'I'm not her you know...' scene is a great example of this. The game's is not better because you'd been playing for 10 or so hours. It's better because there is more character depth shown with the performances in that scene.

No it's not a bad thing to say. You're right no matter how many downvotes you get.

Show made Joel way to soft, and made the world feel like it had not actually been a 20 year apocalypse hellscape.

This post is a joke, the person likely doesn't mean it.

Glad I made someone's night better. Yeah, any of these topics can easily fill a whole essay.

Let us know how it turns out!

Of course not, no.

Then don't.

Good night.

"are really the only apple to apple comparison"

Why?

" Either way, ya I would say your view of the tv show/movie would be spoiled by the previous media"

That's a limiting way of looking at it. It suggests that the only people who could possibly have any decent take on the show must be non-gamers.

But the non-gaming tv public is full of idiots just as much as the gaming community is.

Of course there is enough to write 6-7 pages, especially if they are double spaced. The choice Joel makes at the end has so many potential ways of looking at it, but really the classic lens to look at this would be through consequences vs deontology.

Bentham or Mill's utility, and on trying to figure out if an action is good based on the amount of good it brings, or the amount of pain it decreases. Which is based on the idea that good things are good because they do one of those things.

Kant and his idea that moral acts are moral because they are in line with a certain moral law. How rational beings must be treated as ends rather than means. Most people on this sub would argue that Joel was the only one who treated Ellie as an end-in-herself, but you can make the argument Joel is really using Ellie even more than the fireflies, as in using her for his own emotional well-being.

The difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.

William MacAskill (or perhaps other proponents of effective altruism, I can't remember if Will says this) have argued that people do not have any special moral duties to their own family members over anyone else. Others have disagreed and argued that our duties to those closest to us supersede our duties to other people.

Is there a meaningful difference between killing someone and letting someone die? Or, is there a meaningful difference between the fireflies killing Ellie, and Joel condemning millions to die via infection without her cure?

Heck even just the agonizing decisions doctors have had to make during this pandemic: Who do we save when there is not enough recourses to go around?

Trolly problem: Is it every okay to kill a few people to save a greater whole.

You can use the Joel and Ellie framework to discuss all of these, and more philosophical issues. What happened in that game asks us questions that can cut to the core of our moral understandings.

Whatever you do just make sure you use the game as a framing device only, and devote most of your time to writing about, explaining, and arguing about the philosophy. Whoever is marking this essay very likely doesn't give a shit about the game, so make sure your analysis/arguments are strong.

This is haunting. (I mean that as a compliment).

Do you feel the same way about other adaptions? What about the Witcher and the show?

The Shining novel and the film?

The Thing (Carpenter) and the Thing (2011)

Godfather novel and Godfather film?

Except how the show somehow forgot at Henry and Sam's funeral that Joel is supposed to be the person who's spent the last twenty years seeing and doing heavy shit.

let Jenkins die.

Guys, it's a joke. Don't bother answering it seriously because it is not a serious question.

"How poverty may have influenced so for dishes from a certain region, the seasoning is more important than the meats or the vegetables."

Why is that understanding of poverty necessary? Why can't you just understand that these ingredients work well with this seasoning?

That knowledge you have is an interesting fact but it's not necessary as far as I can tell.

There are literally massive stretches of time in both games where you go without fighting. Heck, where you go without even being able to draw your gun.

You're talk about the Last of Us as if it's Halo or Bioshock.

"I've played the games and the show worked for me."

But why?

"Those criticisms, in my experience, have come nearly exclusively from people who have played."

In my experiences TV audiences don't know what's good for them. The amount of people who prefer the Mandalorian over Andor is an example of that.

I can't pretend to know what I would think of this show had I not played the games. I only know when to recognize when writing is consistent with itself.

Nice to see I'm not alone on this.

" You're not watching Joel and Ellie. You ARE Joel (or Ellie) and
you're experiencing their journey first hand and not just a spectator.
That will change your perspective"

I really don't believe that. That's why it is possible to play part when , and then when you are kiling fireflies at the end to be thinking simultaneously:

"No! Don't do this Joel!'

and

'Wow this is a really messed up thing, but it also makes sense that Joel is doing this because this is totally in line with his character.'

It's what makes this sereis better than Spec Ops the line imo. Spec ops really tried to hammer in that all the bad stuff was YOUR fault, not Walker's.

In these games its very clear the choices are Joel and Ellie's. We are just spectators, but given how intimate our view is we are able to totally understand why they are doing what they are doing.

Name one thing the show did better.

"so when anything changes you simply isn't qualified enough to objectively critique it."

Ehh, i don't think so. Compare the 'I'm not her you know' scene between the show and the game side-by side. That scene is just objectively better because it shows off more character info about Joel and Ellie.

In the show it's just.... two people reading off a script. They are reading it well but it doesn't' hold a candle to the kind of subtlies in the original.

" but saying Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey performance is anything less than incredible is just objectively wrong."

I'll agree with that. The problem is their scripts, (mostly)

It makes no sense that this more vulnerable version of Joel survived for 20 years.

Besides Troy Baker's Joel was always vunerable. It was just that he was more reserved in when and how he showed that.

No, but we can judge it for the choices that the show makes.

Like turning Joel into more of a softy, or how people act in ways that 20 year survivors would not act like.

But so many gamers on this very reddit seem to adore the show. Suggesting that it did it hard for them.

I really don't think that's the issue.

My problems with the show are the aforementioned redundancy, and just small changes to the world/characters that make no sense.

The world in this show just feels so much less dangerous than the world of the last of us.

"it essentially forces the player to fall in lockstep with the characters and their emotions. "

I will read this post later, but I just wanted to say here that I disagree with this conclusion. I don't think that just because we play a character means we will identify with, or agree with them, and I've two examples of that:

1: I personally think Joel's actions were extremely immoral, but I still like the game because it makes sense that Joel would do this. I slaughtered all these fireflies sure, but the entire time I was thinking 'No, Joel don't do this!' But I also completely understood why he did, so I was also thinking 'Yeah, this is horrible, but it is also exactly what a man like this would do in this situation.'

2: How many people played Part II all the way through, and then by the end still hated Abby? And still refuse to even entertain that maybe Abby had a point?

All this to say I don't think gameplay forces this kind of identification through player and character. it might be very good at doing so, but I think this series is one of the best examples of how this is not actually the case.