LET YOUR "GOOD" CHARACTERS DO BAD THINGS DAMNIT 

Go to audible.com/Bricky or text "Bricky" to 500-500 especially if you want to listen to the 8th legion flay people

Bricky: "Allow the characters to do bad things." Spec Ops The Line: "Done, now try to live with it."

Thank you! I sometimes want to lose my shit when listening to people go on and on about a character's morality.

Just wanted to say, something being justified doesn't mean it has to be morally right.

As both a father and a crayon eating veteran morals don’t even come into it where your kids’ literal lives are concerned as far as thought process. I both believe and understand where Joel is coming from in the last of us.

“If Ellie’s operating room was centered in the Jedi temple Anakin would look like Ghandi.” I was crying for five twenty minutes straight after hearing this. Thank you.

I want Bricky to do bad things

I am a father, and I can seriously put myself in Joel's shoes. I know it is reprehensible, but I would carve a bloody path to get my daughter if she was ever taken from me.

The ENTIRE arc of Joel is that he was never going to let what happened to him happen ever again.

Arthur Morgan is a great example. I loved him as a character and I very much often found myself rooting for him during fights and feeling bad for him when he gets melancholy, but he's still an outlaw criminal who ends up hurting innocent people sometimes. Yet despite that, I didnt find myself having super conflicted moments with some of the things Arthur did. Despite being a Bad Guy, he was still a good man.

No but seriously holy shit. I loved Joel for exactly this reason. Same with most of my other fav characters

It's partly about a character living consistent with the conditions they've set for themselves. Walter White can be a good and villainous character because his condition is that: *he wants to take care of his family* . His descent from morally good to villainous, is highlighted by his life while being morally "good" ultimately fail to satisfy his condition. Joel can be a horrible persons after losing his daughter because he lost his condition; *to protect his daughter* . He later projects daughterhood onto Ellie ,the game sets up for him to regain that condition once lost ,which leads to the events he would do to never lose that condition again. Andrew Stanton has a whole TED talk about this.

What Joel did made perfect sense to me cos it’s what most human beings would do if they could. A world without Ellie after his experience with his daughter would be no world to live in for him.

Im sure people have pointed this out but, there's a lot of parents who do conceptually horrible things for their children. There's a good historical instance of it: Gary Plauche, who's son was molested by a family 'friend' that Gary himself tried to help through financial hardship by giving him a place to stay. When they caught the guy (who kidnapped his son sort of.), and brought him in to the airport; Plauche was awaiting there with a handgun and straight up killed the guy. Parents in the real world have set out on deadly revenge plots for their kids, so what Joel did is 100% understandable especially given his history.

I loved joel because he was grounded with doing bad things. Hes human and makes mistakes and even owns up to them. If it was like some superhero angel i wouldnt enjoy his character as much.

Ah yes, the haunting words; "It's just what my Character would do...!!" *Screams in DM*

Finally, after 9 years (or 2, depending on your point of view) someone made a meaningful, thoughtful video about TLOU that gets the point of the ending without getting bogged down by petty rhetoric or backwards, contrived discussions about morality. Thank you.

Something I found interesting was that the only objective is to reach the operating room. All combat is optional and the only people who have to die are the guard escorting Joel, and the doctor. One other thing I read into the ending was the subtext that Ellie knew what Joel did, knew that everything he said was a lie, and understood his decision.

The way I look at this choice is that they never give Ellie the choice at the end and Joel’s choice isn’t right but it’s REAL, we feel it

"when is it ok for someone to act out of character" NEVER if you want someone to "act out of character", you HAVE to set up the action they are going to take as being IN character in that specific circumstance if the good character murders a man, something which would normally be horrifically out of character for them, you MUST set it up that events and circumstances have pushed them to this, that this specific murder in this specific case is something they WOULD do, it is IN character if a character does something "out of character", and this action has not been set up as actually being something they WOULD do (aka its actually IN character) then you have immediatly destroyed your own character, the audiance can no longer believe them or the actions they take, their storyline is no longer something the audiance can accept as it depends on something that the audiance doesnt believe would have happened, if i dont believe that event would happen, i dont believe anything that comes after it, my suspension of disbelief, my immersion in the story, is gone

The Fireflies' ineptitude only matters if you're considering Joel's conundrum as a technical choice- with "creating a viable vaccine" being the success condition. But it's not a technical choice. As you said, Joel would've done the exact same thing if they were an advanced alien civilization with 0% chance of failure. Because his reasoning is about whether or not Elie dies, not whether the vaccine is successful.

Here's my argument: Was Joel morally correct in his actions? No. Was he justified in his actions? I would say yes. My primary argument for this is that Marlene and the fireflies treatment of Joel when he woke up was "idiotic" for lack of a better term. Marlene and the Fireflies thought they lost Ellie after Boston and had nearly given up hope until Joel arrives nearly a year later. Obviously in that time they would have formed some sort of connection. Joel's first question when he wakes up is about her whereabouts, and Marlene responds that she's on an operating table. Joel then ask to see her and Marlene responds that there's no point because she's going to die. Joel obviously has a negative reaction to this because of course he would and they decide the best course of action is to escort him out with orders to kill him if he tries anything. Wouldn't a better solution be to offer him the opportunity to say goodbye? It's not like they have to perform the surgery right then and there and for fucks sake Ellie at least deserves to know that she's going to die. Joel hearing from Ellie that she was fine with it might push the story into a different direction. And obviously that would also give them more time to run more test. (Doesn't matter in the grand scheme but something to keep in mind) But of course that didn't happen because they immediately antagonize the one person who couldn't care less about the world and only cared about the girl. Pair that with the fact that the initial plan was for them to kill Joel when he got there (remember, the deal was for Joel and the other girl to smuggle Ellie to them for guns and you can find tapes where Marlene says people have been telling her to kill Joel and she refuses), the fireflies specifically could have handled the entire situation better. Again, morally speaking this doesn't make Joel's actions the correct actions by any means, but it does make them more reasonable. And I find it a bit odd that people are in edge about "slaughtering 30 people in a medical facility" when you spend most of the game killing people, both as Ellie and Joel in a wide variety of environments. I understand that the context of why is different for the final level with Joel being the aggressor and all, but it's basically the same thing you've been doing the entire game, just with access to a fully automatic weapon.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind when writting morally complex characters is to always keep this in mind: What people WANT to be or do ,won't always coincide with what they ACTUALLY are or will do Basically, most people have some sort of ideology or set of morals we like to say that we try to keep to for the sake of decency or even just sanity But when the situation is really dire or when people are pushed too far by grief , anger or even love, how many of us would really be able to control ourselves from making illogical decisions? And, more importantly, what if said morals or ideals prevent you from doing something that you consider to be right? Law & Order did this a LOT, like in that one episode where a grieving father shot and killed a child psychopath who got off scott free after murdering his son. On one hand, that was absolutely horrid. But on the other hand, the guy probably saved dozens of lives by taking the only action he could to prevent the kid from growing up into a serial killer, emboldened by the fact that he got away with it once

Joel torturing the guy in that room to figure out where Ellie was is where he became the most interesting to me

Morality is in the eye of the beholder you put it beautifully when you explained Joels choice. No matter if the character is percived as good or bad doesn't matter if the character is believable. Joels reaction is perfectly normal for most people if they had his skillset. A lot of parents would murder in cold blood if it meant protecting their child.

No Bricky, writing isn't cool. In fact, I'd say writing fucking sucks. Speaking as a writer.

12:58 Killed me. I need more edits like that.

4:36 that short sniper elite video where the guy shoots all four of the soldier's balls never gets old, absolute masterpiece.

In the words of a man smarter than I: “You don’t want to be helpless. You may think ‘If I’m helpless, I’m good’ but that’s not true. A helpless man, a weak man is incapable of violence, and being incapable of causing harm isn’t the same thing as being virtuous. What you want is to be capable of violence but have the moral fortitude not to abuse that power. That’s what makes you virtuous. That’s what makes you good.” My personal favorite characterization is to take a good intentioned individual and force them to make a choice that has one of two outcomes: Stick to your morals but people will suffer for your unyielding convictions, OR! take an action that contradicts your moral code to the sole benefit of another. Either choice forces the true nature of the character to rise to the surface.

My mans Bricky literally reviewed an adult/hentai game and he still getting top tier sponsors, yall other youtubers dont have excuses at this point.

Dude, i now understand why berserk is so good. Would be a good example for good writing, too because everyone is so believable! Love joel for that ending though. I was so impressed with that games ending

It is SSOOO nice to hear you tear into the stupid “fireflies were inept so it’s ok” argument. It’s a cop out argument that tries to circumvent the real core question and I’ve ALWAYS hated it

The impression of Abby’s dad was pretty good lmao

I'm loving your game reviews. You should do one about Metal Gear Rising for the memes, the DNA of the soul.

*Okay I’ve been saying this for ages* I was talking about how different “Moon Knight” was from the comics - and how he’s usually “Cutting people up and hanging bodies from street lamps” and in the show - he’s a watered down version of that… somebody responded with, “But If Moon Knight did all that he’d be the bad guy / villain of the show” 🤦‍♂️ its not like that’s what he’s like originally.

my favorite thing about the ending of TLOU is that I don't know if Joel did the right thing or no but I know that I would have done the same thing.

Having moral characters do terrible things sometimes for the people they care or for good reasons they justify it with is always so interesting since you can imagine/question what was going on in that character's mind and whether you'd do the same thing if you were in their situation

Good video as always Bicky! I highly recommend covering Project Wingman: it's a Ace Combat style military flight game but it really forms it's own identity and is a staggering experience. God tier Soundtrack too. Love your content Bricky, keep it up!

Babe wake up, new Bricky video

I feel like this topic is a perfect example of why media literacy is so important in a time that is so saturated by unchallenging entertainment purely made for safe consumerism. So many people are now conditioned to justify or rationalize actions made by protagonists due to the perpetuation of the idea that main characters should be heroes and that anyone who engages in morally questionable behaviour is a villain, it has gotten to the point where people cannot identify the awful behavious that characters they like engage in due to being unwilling to like a character that makes morally questionable decisions (or that heroes and villains are required for stories to work). I cannot tell you how many people were visibly confused when I would describe Joel as a creepy and awful person, but I still love him as a character. Frankly I am bothered by how important it is for writers or people who consume media to feel the need to constantly label characters as good or evil. I am not a moral relitavist, but to me I am not really concerned on whether Joel is a "good" person, that has no bearing on my reason for playing The Last of Us, I am interested in how the choices Joel makes are consistent with his character and how they make me invested in his story.

As a writer moral ambiguity is the most hardest thing to do in characters, when writing a story because you need to have layers on it and how you set up the ending. Meaning some writers got burn out on doing something new on the story. But I agree with your points because it needs purpose on the character make it grounded to reality so that the person who are reading it, will scratch their heads and think about it. PS: I apologize on my english, I can't speak fluently. 😂😂 Ohh I forgot keep it up man this is a great video for writers

Editing mistake at 10:40, Walter White is described as doing bad things with a backdrop of him killing nazis

Can't believe this wasn't in this video :) So I lied, I cheated, I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all, I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again, I would. Garak was right about one thing. A guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant, so I will learn to live with it. Because I can live with it. I can live with it. Computer... erase that entire personal log.

Joel's answer is perfectly covered in last of us 2 when Marlene aka Ellie's current mom states "the guy went across the whole united states with the girl can't you give him some time."

That’s why I really like the Punisher and the Red hood because they do morally bad things for the right reasons. And if saving the world means sacrificing one child. Then It would be better to let the world end. (Don’t remember we’re the last one is from but it’s a quote from something)

Based book recommendation Recently read it and the passage with "one must imagine Sisyphus happy" resonated so much with me, love that book

"let your characters do terrible things" let me just force my character to commit genocide thanks bricky (this is satirical I respect his opinion)

Key word to what I think you're going over here. Decisions made by a character need to have consequences. Bad decisions, good decisions. The further on the spectrum a character is pushed the more consequence they should face. The more successful they are in their decisions, the more they should feel justified and stick to their guns for better or worse.

These kind of stories, the ones that explore character choice, are important. To self insert to relatable concepts, in this case parental protection, to then ask the could I do this? Would I? Stories help us grow as people without having to actually experience these hardships, or help us when these hardships do come along. Thanks for the vid, Bricky

Joel was such a good character, damnit I’m still upset about last of us 2

Joel was and still is a great character, him and Ellie living together in Jackson was a perfect end to their story. I’m so glad that there wasn’t a sequel.

In the operating room, I'm pretty sure you didn't need to kill all the doctors there, just the first one. But hey, you do you Bricky

Having it be conveniently justified is definitely annoying, no moral dilemma, no conversation to be had, just a “don’t worry everything’s fine and it all worked out”

Joel was Black Air Force energy, personified, man. He was a menace.

I feel like I got second hand catharsis from this video from how good you felt actually getting to talk about this.

Good points being raised, and I agree with them. The only two limits that I see here, are player's morality up to that point and player agency in general: -I think one of the reasons why people want to argue that what Joel did was "justified", "morally right" or however you want call it, is that emotionnally it can feel justify. In the context of the how numb to violence videogames make us in general, this last section can feel like "just another corridor shooting gallery". What I mean is, TLOU, even if it's trying to not be a carefree TPS already contains a lot of murder up to that point, and also doesn't exist in a vacuum, but allongside a lot of other shooters. It can end up in the hands of players who have been shooting at polygonal shapes for decades. So the attrocity of the killing doesn't matter much, neither in the context of the game or for the general audience that is going to interact with it. After several hours of doing it without putting much morallity on it, your moral compass is not about to be especially going the pacifist route. It means that your emotions may align with Joel, because the thing you care about is Ellie, not 35 fireflies soldiers. And if you align morally with a murderer, you can be tempted to explain why by means of fact checking the fireflies. And...I don't know how much Naughty Dog thought about that or not. Judging by the poor state of the story in Part 2, I'd say that they had another "happy accident" to quote your video. Or they had less of a graspe on their characters in the second game. That being said, and being a player for decades with lots of bodies on my virtual conscience, I still think Joel was wrong, but as you said, in this moment it's not really about what I want, and I think the game pulls that off pretty well. -The other thing that can be problematic with this kind of "bad action" from "good character", is player agency, and how much of the burden of morallity the developers seem to put on the player's shoulder at that moment. In TLOU, I don't feel like I'm doing something wrong in the end, because I'm playing Joel, the character has been well defined, and the gameplay resorts to violence almost at every turn when a problem needs solving. And I feel like the game is not really asking me to question how good or bad my actions are, it's about Joel's. The game couldn't have that ending if you could act like a pacifist during gameplay. You can to some extend, but it's more about picking your battles and being clever when engaging with a threat, so you survive the next room, than about not wanting to kill. The second game though...I ran towards door more than half of the situation, constantly meeting long press interactions to force my character into a bad situation that would force me to be violent. And I found myself at complete odds with Ellie, every decision feeling like the devs forcing the drama and the anger and the bitterness just to justify a violent and game, for the sake of making you participate in their torture porn...I didn't like it at all. And not because Ellie was morally wrong (I mean she is full stop) but because she's not that character, not in the first game, and not in the second either. She's lost yes, but look at her face everytime she kills someone in self defense because of bad circumstances; and then look at how stupid the Nora scene is in that context, especially with the developers asking for the player's participation, as if it was their decision too. And I know the idea is to bring some "nuance" to the revenge quest, but it's so poorly executed, especially when the game let's me bypass every encounter without firing a shot and then blocks with a triangle icon because I wasn't enough of a bad person in that room. Basically, it needs to feel right that the character is wrong, and you need not to be at complete odds with them between gameplay and cutscenes.

*Love is a powerful thing, it can make us do the damnedest things especially when we fear the loss of the things we hold dear.*

Now while I agree with you on some of this Bricky. The actions of the Fireflies have to be taken into consideration. If they were written to be good people, then they wouldn't be framed so badly in the story. A good faction trying to actually help the world wouldn't put Joel in that position in the first place. They'd have brought Joel in on the decision. Waited till Ellie had woken up to give her consent and make it clear what was going to happen. They'd also absolutely take the time to collect as much data as they could. Especially when they've already pointlessly killed other people while looking for a cure like the Fireflies had in the story. If they'd been written like that then Joel's decision would absolutely be grey or even immoral, but they are not. So them being terrorist thugs in a rundown shithole hospital about to hack open another innocent person for no good reason, given the evidence, is exactly what makes this a morally good or bad choice for Joel. 'Context is king' as they say. Whats the context for Joel making this decision? Is he cutting down people that'll actually help humanity or just another group of murders hiding behind the claim they are 'saving the world' to justify their actions? Because I can tell you about other doctors that pointlessly mutilated and murdered children believing they were saving the world with their research. Look at it this way. Was killing David's group bad? What about David himself? Him and his people were just another group trying to survive that were going to use Ellie to do it. I mean if you want to divorce what the Fireflies are from the equation of morality. Then you must agree that Joel slaughtering David's group was just as morally grey as killing the Fireflies, right? After all it doesn't matter they were cannibals or what they'd do to Ellie. Joel made the exact same decision to slaughter them and torture their people to save her. Oh on that note. Interesting how weirdly the Fireflies with their lofty ideals and righteous speeches so neatly align with David's group in their actions. I wonder if that was on purpose and might have informed Joel's decision.

Ellie’s emotionally loaded okay at the end of the first game was such a beautiful ending it made you think didn’t give a clear answer it was fucking beautiful and amazing man that game is so fucking good

I love characters that are written to accept the human truth that heroes are capable of evil and might do evil things and yet **choose** to be good and vice-versa. Not even “morally gray”, I just like seeing bad guys who aren’t sociopaths and actively make the decision to keep being awful people out of free will.

Tlou1: choosing between blind fate and a glimpse of hope in the dark Tlou2: lmao moral superiority my beloved

I love games that give multiple choices that make you think of the characters in different ways, Tales of the Borderlands comes to mind!

This is a great video - BUT I strongly disagree with your final example. You can't cut out the Fireflies from Joel's decision, because you can't divorce an action from its context. The context _always_ matters. Because if there was another way that avoids the moral qualms, then jumping to the morally dubious action anyway raises another issue. I wouldn't think Joel was making an active choice about humanity if the Fireflies and him were more agreeable - I'd think they're all idiots. I wouldn't give this game a second glance afterwards. And even if you take out the Fireflies' incompetence, there's a load of other issues that I'm not sure the writers thought about. For example: - Ellie never consents. Yes, we know Ellie tied her worth as a person to her immunity, so there's a good chance she'd have agreed. Doesn't matter. They still have to ask. And yes you can tie this back to the Fireflies' dubiousness in that they never ask. - Who controls the vaccine. Are Joel and Ellie saving humanity? Or are they giving a chaotic organisation a massive political tool? The Fireflies won't give it freely to everyone, they'll give it to whoever cozies up to them. This is all assuming they can mass-produce it, too. - Is the vaccine actually enough? It's good, but the game has made it clear humanity has become its own worst enemy. The world will not magically get better. Most of the major conflicts in TLOU2 would still happen. Ellie and the Fireflies would be incredibly optimistic to think it's enough. But Bricky, don't think I didn't hear the point you're trying to make. What you're getting at in this video - Joel's actions and motivations - are the heart of the dilemma. Would he still do this even if none of these factors existed, and everything was going perfectly? Would he not resort to anything else? They're what we're meant to think about. So let's say he would - we are now telling a _completely_ different story. The spirit of TLOU1's story is that perhaps it's not worth sacrificing what makes us human for the sake of survival. This is a theme heavily foreshadowed throughout the game. Joel goes from a kind father to a brutal pragmatist, and while he survives, his life is hollower. His brother Tommy says it "wasn't worth" surviving because of what they did. Saving Ellie isn't just him reconnecting with his fatherly side - it's him saying that he's done with clear-cut survivalism. That's part of why the two of them go back to Tommy's settlement, to settle down in a place less cutthroat. That's why he tells Ellie at the end that it's okay to just live a humble life, to find something new worth living for. That's why him saving Ellie makes sense. That's why his entire character is being tested in any way here, it's not just his parental love for Ellie. A truly selfish Joel like who we see at the start would probably be okay with the vaccine since he can get one himself. This Joel knows he'd rather risk being infected than live another day like he did in Boston. If you have Joel shoot up a bunch of goodie-two-shoes, you take ALL of that out. You could not do this in TLOU1 and then call it a good story, because it'd be an entirely different story to the one that TLOU1 carefully built up. It would have come out of left field, it would have contradicted a lot of the setup and thus been an underwhelming payoff. It would have been empty shock-and-awe. We would have learned nothing. But he didn't. He killed people from an organisation that is much morally greyer - in a situation that is much morally greyer - to save one life. And so, be he right or wrong, we have an ending we are still talking about actively almost ten years after its release. Weighing his cons and his pros. Because of everything that informs this story. TL;DR context is critical for every moral dilemma and it influences the stories we make. For a good character making bad decisions to work, the external pieces must be there, not just the arc. The Fireflies matter.

Superman was about balancing control and not knowing one’s true self think you’d need to see it recently to decide on it

I will never be a father because the thought of passing on my health and mental issues to my child is something I can't stand. But despite my mind being irreparably broken my psychiatrist I've been with for a decade said it right "God help anyone who harms your family". Found that out when a guy tried to snatch up my neice at the park. I was watching over her while my sister and her husband were having a final check up before my nephew was born. In the end my neice was ok, I broke my foot, the guy ended up in the ICU, and his girlfriend in a mental hospital from seeing me nearly kill him. After that my brother-in-law never had a problem with my watching over Evie and she still has me check her room for monsters when end up reading her bedtime stories. I'm terrified of fighting, with mental issues a single fight can get you thrown in a padded cell for life. But that really doesn't matter if it's my family that's in trouble. PS: Evie didn't see anything because of how I was holding her and the situation didn't leave her with anything other than the belief that her uncle will make the monsters run away....that always brings a few tears to my eye when she says that.

6:00 Tony Stark is Sundowner: Thanos:"I am inevitable..." Tony Stark:"...and i am FUCKING INVINCIBLE!" *snap* *AUDIO BLARRING* "WHEN THE AIR BLOWS THROUGH, IN THE BRISK ATTACK, THE REPTILE TAIL RIPPED FROM IT'S BACK! WHEN THE SUN SETS, WE WILL NOT FORGET THE RED SUN OVER PARADIIIIIISE!"

I really liked the video. I'm fully on board with Joel's motivations being what's most important in the writing since it's what drives his actions. I just personally think morality is a fun little discussion topic that can add ambiguity to a story and it adds layers to what the story is trying to tell. Should we risk the survival of mankind on the death of the only person immune to the zombie infection or do we protect the person most likely condemning humanity because it's not a guarantee a cure could be made? Both sides have their values but also can be seen as morally wrong. It's also why I love the game Lost Judgment cause it also has a really good theme about justice and how the right answer is not that simple. I would be stoked to see videos from you in the future about the Yakuza or Judgment games. They're some of my favorite games to come out of Japan.

something specific about TLOU1 that even TLOU2 seems to forget: The cure for the Cordiceps that the Fireflies were trying to get while killing Ellie wasn't a sure thing. They are specifically noted as this not being the first person they had done this operation with and they still didnt have the cure. For all we know they can't make the cure, and the best option is just letting these people naturally spread the immunity by having kids. Which is, y'know, a bit hard for them to do if they're fuckin' dead.

I didn’t know what a bread box looked like, until today, 12:05. Thx Bricky

Joel (and Ellie) is one of my all time favorite characters. His actions at the end of the game are selfish, brutal and yet completely understandable.

I think both of these statements can exist at the same time: *1:* Joel is a morally unjust murderer who would have done it no matter what *2:* The fireflies are a bunch of incompetent assholes who would not have been able to roll out the vaccine to as many people who would have needed it if they even managed to synthesize one at all, and assuming they did, they'd get overrun by bandits/the military in the first week of announcing a cure; Probably would have even acted in a Mad Max Fury Road tier fashion the same way the antagonist of that movie did over water even if they did survive that kind of onslaught of interest, so Ellie would have died for nothing. They are like if Kenny from Telltale's The Walking Dead was a group instead of a person. Either way, I'm in full agreement that protagonists should be allowed to do bad things.

Yup. The LOU story is based on a pretty simple premise. Do the needs of the one (Ellie) out-weight the needs of the many (people needing a cure) and what if that one was the most important person in the world to you (Joel). I went through that hospital like a hot knife through butter when I heard they were going to kill Ellie (though I tried not to kill the doctor) and it was only afterwards with lying to Ellie and discovering Joel had murdered Marlene in cold blood (pretty much the nearest person Ellie had to a mother) than I found I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth. It was what made the game so powerful and why I loved it. I think over time people who loved Joel, but were uncomfortable with his actions, tried to tip the balance over to his side. The cure wouldn't have worked, the doctor was a nazi, the fireflies wouldn't have shared the cure, etc. All to try and make themselves feel better about Joel's choice. That ruins the whole basis of the story though. With no real cure there's no real dilemma, no consequence of the choice and its just another holywood popcorn flick. I think that's one of the reasons why the second game annoyed them. It reset the balance and removed a lot of the excuses they'd spent seven years coming up with. Turns out the doctor wasn't an evil bond villain, just a morally compromised desperate man and the cure would have worked. He and Joel were two people on opposite sides of a horrible shitty dilemma with no good outcome for both sides. They thought the game said Joel was the villain rather than seeing it was just showing the Fireflies perspective of it based on what information they had. Much like the guys in the tunnel who knocked out Joel. They didn't know he was trying to resuscitate the "saviour" of mankind, he was just someone they found trespassing in their tunnels near their base.

I've spent the last few years writing a Scifi. One scene involves my main character luring a swarm of space bugs to a populated civilan world in order to buy time for his armies to regroup. The bugs invade in force but then rather than let the civilians die slow painful deaths, he blows the planet up with most of the bug swarm planetside. Another point has him abandon his wife and unborn child, but he does it to save them. They reunite later on, but after many years of war. The story isn't like warhammer where "There are no good guys", there is a defined good vs bad but sometimes the good character make questionable choices.

Bricky, the only reason people discuss how inept the fireflies are is because it makes a debate on if it was morally acceptable or not. Yes, Joel would’ve done it even if it was to the most noble people on earth at the time, but that would’ve been a much more unredeemable act. The fact that the fireflies were as big of idiots as they were shown in the game, makes Joel’s decision a lot more forgivable in my eyes, even it didn’t matter in the slightest to him. They also threatened to kill him if he didn’t leave and he didn’t even get the stash of weapons he was owed for the job, which imo is reason enough for his anger considering the world they’re in.

Watched this... then watched your LOU2 video... and then circled back to this one... and this one I think helps illustrate most of the issues I had with #2. Try as hard as I could, I could not buy into any of these (LOU2) character's motivations. Whether it was side characters, or main, I could not understand or feel that anything they were doing was natural. It all felt completely contrived to just tell me "Revenge is bad". Yep... could have told me that in a DLC I think.

The best part with Bricky edits is that I can not be sure just by audio if it is an ad or not.

100% agree. No human is morally correct, rational, composed or flawlessly consistent. Makes characters more believable. Part of the story is the growth, the acceptance and will to do better or be better.

Remember, Luke is arguably guilty of killing almost half a million innocents. Normal people worked on the Death Star. There were shopping malls, civilian housing, daycares, and hospitals on the Death Star, it really was like a small nation. Luke likely knew this after he fired the torpedos, having felt the impact on the Force from thatmany lives lost at once. It is the horror of war and a necessary sacrafice to protect billions, but it is pretty morally dubious, regardless.

I wish I could have experienced The Last of Us for myself. By the time i played it I was fully aware of the ending and many of the big emotional beats.

Man. Superman isn’t boring because he does good things in the comics, he’s actually really cool. In fact a lot of characters are like that in comics, you just need a good writer

Good to see your all healed up from the arm wrestling incident! Amd i completely agree with your opinion on the bad character thing. I personally enjoy writing broken evil characters, and having them be the good guys. Its fun to twist thing, and its hilarious when the good guys do something atrocious, and seeing people react to it.

In my experience, my friends who are parents understand Joel’s choice and love the ending, while my friends who aren’t parents tend to not understand and think Joel should have chosen to “save the world,” or defer to the ineptitude of the Fireflies.

For this reason i love 40k bc no one is "the good guys"

Yes! This is exactly why I loved Arcane, there is no clear distinction between Good and Evil, Black and White. Rather all characters have understandable motives and you can even kinda sympathize with the main antagonist, while there are reasons to dislike the protagonist. So the characters feel human, they are relatable because they don‘t always do the „right thing“, but their actions always seem relatable

I love Audible! Thanks for recommending specific books, feel free to do that whenever cuz it's quite helpful. There are so many options it can be overwhelming. AND I LOVE this VIDEO, you are hilarious. Laughed so hard. And --Joel is the best

no way you used mos as an example of a perfect character when he’s literally the only on screen superman that acts like a human being

No, no I don't think I will - The Writers probably

Characters you care deeply for and sympathize with doing horrible things is the best kind of character story. Its not that you think its morally right, its that you understand exactly why they are doing what they do and can understand their justification even if its not morally upstanding which makes the viewer think and be very uncomfortable in a good way.

Man, nothing makes me angrier than people who try to argue that a villain was right because they... had a motivation. Thanks for reminding us that bad actions have very understandable motives behind them.

Also the "ineptitude of the fireflies" has less to do with the fireflies themselves and more to do with the settings, seeing as how literally everyone in this world get their asses kicked

People tends to dislike media that reminds them that real life is not black and white and that THEY probably are as bad as the characters in the story. Last of Us 2 is hated because it's a reminder that the entirety of Lou 1 was a pov of a human, with human flaws and human feelings and that actions have consequences. Even if the message is jamfisted, the message still stands "you are shit gamer, because you are human". And people despise being reminded they're the norm not the exception.

Thank you Bricky for finally pointing out the major underlying flaw when people start debating if Joel was right to do what he did: using decision criteria that didn't inform his decision in the slightest. For my part, I take Joel's side over Ellie's on what he should've done in the hospital. Setting aside the fact that having a vaccine isn't gonna fix everything, these people did not ask Ellie's permission. Which means morally speaking, they're the same as David's cannibals; they're willing to attack, murder, and consume strangers because it'll improve the survivability of their group. Ellie didn't fight so ruthlessly to survive David because they were being so inefficient in cannibalizing her, or because so many more lives could've been saved. She did it because fuck them for deciding she should give up everything she has because they want it. At the end of the day, Joel's decision might be the morally wrong one to make. It might have been the worse evil to betray Ellie's desire to help, and to close off that path forever by murdering the doctors, Marlene, and various other fireflies. But it was also the only choice Joel could ever take.

To quote unforgiven: “I don’t deserve this!” “Deserves got nothing to do with this”

Dude, when I was watching for the first time that cutscene where Marlene tells Joel about the operation and the vaccine I was just repeating aloud "it isn't worth it" over and over. And then Joel/me started killing people in that fucking hospital. I'll tell you what, I've never been so much in sync with the character in videogame before as in that moment. Well maybe except Spec Ops the line WP scene.

The Last Of Us was such a great game that ended off so powerful with that morally questionable ending. Such a masterpiece. Shame they won't ever make a sequel though I'm happy the writers know when to stop a great story when it is time and not risk butchering it or not understanding why their story was good.

Basically the way I see it, almost anyone and everyone that sees what Jole did at the end of TLOU 1 as evil are young and don't have kids. Once your have a kid of your own, and you know and/or fear what Jole has been through. You'll see that he did what he thought was right, and feel it was well. Untill your life and purpose is about protecting and raising your own child, you don't know, and can't know how that feels. You can't imagine the depths you might even contemplate if it means protecting that child's life.

God you put my thoughts PERFECTLY in this. Thank you. I hate the technical argument because it doesn't matter. Well done.

I feel Telltale's Walking Dead series was pretty good at this; Lee, Clem and Javi can all do pretty terrible things but it never really feels out of character when they do

Off topic but as a Fighting game fan, that Capcom vs SNK bit. Real nice!

The thing I love about Joel and his actions during the ending is.... not only is it understandable as something Joel would do, but it's something I think most of us would do. Let's say we bond with someone over the course of about a year, and grow to love her like family.... then what? You have to kill her? I understand why someone would think "yes, let them save the world..." but I also understand what parenthood is. _Any_ parent would scramble to find a way out of a situation where their kid will die.