They wouldn't have been able to distribute it properly and wouldn't have shared it with the feds or other factions. Also people dying from just bites seems to be a minority, most people get ripped apart by the infected or killed by other humans.
Neil Druckmann confirms the Fireflies could have made a viable cure in interview (+ other insights on the show, games, and future) | Page 2 | ResetEra
Published 9 hours ago• 24 minute read
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The thing is, is that people justify Joel saving Ellie "because making the cure wouldn't have worked anyway".Honestly don't think the cure being viable or not matters at all.Joel makes the decision to save Ellie to save his second daughter. It's really not that deep and you also have no agency over this in the game.
Whether that's the moral thing to do on the promise of a cure is an open question.
Which for the game's story purposes is obviously bullshit.
Joel himself didn't even doubt if it could work. That part never mattered. Also it's been 10+ years, nothing wrong with a creator sharing what they think.
It was literally never presented as ambiguous and you're supposed to take it at face value that it'll work. Mega dorks who want Joel to have done nothing wrong are the only people who took it as such.
Plus it takes any bite out of the ending if you try to um actually it wouldn't work the cure. Joel dooming any future for humanity due to the love for his surrogate daughter or Joel killing a bunch of idiot kid killers. One is definitely more interesting than the other.
Leaving it ambiguous makes the moment better IMO.
Finally.
People going "hmm..maybe Joel fucked up...nah, wouldn't have worked anyway" were so funny.
At no point the game hints at that being a possibility, you're just supposed to believe it.
People going "hmm..maybe Joel fucked up...nah, wouldn't have worked anyway" were so funny.
At no point the game hints at that being a possibility, you're just supposed to believe it.
It's like people being presented with hypothetical scenarios and coming up with all sorts of hidden variables that aren't mentioned anywhere and are beyond the point. Or just refusing the scenario altogether because it's unlikely.
(Still, 100% #teamJoel. Get out with the greater good bullshit and moral superiority lol)
I know it's an interview but I wish creatives would not do this when it comes to storytelling. Let the work exist on its own merit. It's ambiguous for a reason.
I mean yeah so? Honestly personally i don't think it even really matters at that point world was already in a absolute shit state with literal cannibal and murderers everywhere and the infected can not be cured so you still have millions of monsters running around everywhere ripping ppl apart.There was nothing worth saving even if they did manage to make a cure and actually distribute it which is definitely the bigger problem here considering the state the Fireflys where in and the logistics involved.
This is one factor I think a lot of people over look. The possibility of inoculating people, even a relatively smaller group at first (50, 100, 200?) so they no longer have to instantly put a bullet in their own brain the moment they suffer an otherwise completely survivable injury, can't be overstated. The potential degree of freedom this would offer groups in terms of longevity and expansion, given how easy it is to become infected via a bite or spore inhalation, is enormous. A vaccine would not necessarily have single handedly rebuilt the world, but it at minimum could have provided a shitton of security and safety for a lot of people.
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with this. It's not about suspending disbelief, it's about the game deliberately making the whole situation with the Fireflies seem sketchy. I genuinely spit out my drink and started laughing when it was revealed that they were going to instantly take the precious immune person and dissect her almost immediately after getting their hands on her. This goes beyond contrivance or convenience and into the realm of deliberately misleading the player into thinking there's ambiguity. All it would have taken is something denoting the passage of time prior to wanting to scoop out her brain and it would have been fine. It's not about suspending disbelief, it's about making unneeded decisions that mislead the player.
I'm not sure how the player is misled?
I personally think the story is a lot more interesting if you don't actually know if there was a chance of a cure happening, but you do you, Neil.
Never understood why people thought they couldn't.That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good.
Yeah, it's such a strange hang up. Joel's decision carries far more weight if the cure would've worked. Since as bob1001 pointed out, if it wouldn't work then the story is just Joel saving Ellie from a bunch of child butchers. Joel's a hero in one story while in the other it's a morally gray choice. Like the story in the game.
To me it's honestly irrelevant whether they can or can't. The whole point of the game ending is that Joel is willing to sacrifice the chance of a cure to save one person.
Risev
"This guy are sick"
Joel literally believes the cure would have worked anywaysNone of you (and I do mean none of you) would let your child die to save other people.This new piece of information changes nothing. Joel could've never know.
When does the text ever implied that it was ambiguous? Notes, dialogue, etc.?I know it's an interview but I wish creatives would not do this when it comes to storytelling. Let the work exist on its own merit. It's ambiguous for a reason.
Eh, I felt like the whole point was that it ultimately didn't matter; Joel wouldn't have acted differently regardless.
But stronger writing around framing and contextualizing the dilemma would have been nice. It's very hard to take the Fireflies and their attempt at a cure seriously, even though I know you're supposed to. I'm glad he recognizes that.
Not surprised in the slightest. The whole set-up clearly revolved around Joel making a choice between saving a single person over the rest of the world. By leaving the door open that the cure wouldn't have worked anyway adds a simple out to negate the whole dilemma. It inevitably pushes all conversation to "do you trust their operation or not?", which is fine, but isn't what they were building towards. You're typically expected to suspend your disbelief and go with the flow in fiction, and not get too bogged down on logistics and probabilities unless the text is leading you towards it.
There was never anything particularly vague about it. People just wanted to give Joel extra justification because they're uncomfortable with characters they like making decisions that aren't 100% justified from all angles.
Like, the entire narrative impact of the scene is the decision he's making to put her over the rest of the world. Not "ah, clearly Joel is wise enough to understand that really the cure isn't actually possible!"
- He recognizes the divisiveness of the second season from game fans. He's appreciative of their love for the material and finds it cool how people see a game as standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a HBO show. He thinks it highlights how gaming has elevated as a medium.
I hate this kind of attitude. The idea that videogames needs to get validation by being compared to TV is ridiculous.
It feels insecure, yes. Like when gaming events have a ton of Hollywood actors presenting stuff.I hate this kind of attitude. The idea that videogames needs to get validation by being compared to TV is ridiculous.
Whether the cure would or wouldn't work doesn't change the justification or condemnation of Joel. If anything it enriches it. It transitions the narrative away from binary absolutes into a dissection of perspective and empathy, where unknowns and the human necessity to make decisions in regards to unknowns, critically or impulsively, is fundamental basis for human life and human interaction. The ambiguity of a cure does not absolve Joel of condemnation nor does it condemn him to murderous villainy. It does precisely the opposite. It frames Joel and his actions through the lens of perspective, forcing the audience to sit in an uncomfortable space of needing to empathise with Joel as to why he made the choices that he felt were genuinely right, being able to feel why he felt this was right, and still being able to condemn him for it, precisely because of the impulsivity and recklessness and his belief that the cure would work.
Conversely, it also reframes the actions of the Fireflies through the same lens; a largely scattered, damaged, disorganised group of well meaning resistance fighters who also engage in, to some degree, questionable, reckless, impulsive actions at the cost of human life, and their specific pursuit to find a cure, of which they are militantly, fanatically committed to, and the ultimate query of "is taking the life of his child, right now, worth the risk of finding a cure, if there is a possibility it won't?".
This prose is echoed through the second game repeatedly. Ellie's stupid ass vengeful recklessness and the disastrous mess of needless death she leaves in her wake. Abby similarly self-justified vengeance and subsequent consequences for what felt right. It's the actions of every group and organisation. It's a core tenant and theme of most post apocalyptic fiction; trying to find meaningfulness, value, and purpose in a world gone to absolute shit when the future seems absolute in its misery and awfulness, and finding said purpose and willingness to commit to something comes with the inherent challenge of hope; hope that the decisions you made, the things you cling to, the reason you choose to live and commit yourself to something are worthwhile in the end when you can't possibly know the outcome.
Joel's entire arc beginning with the first game is exactly this; him finding purpose instead of absolution in self destruction. It's Ellie's journey for finding her own purpose, having that taken away from her, and then having to reconcile this fact with an unknown future. It's Joel and Abby dealing with the consequences of their past actions. It's the fanaticism of the Seraphites and their absolutism. It's the ultimate message that when the future is unknown, when anything could happen, when people can act in any way imaginable, for better or worse, maybe the most important thing is we take time to consider the decisions we can make, not just for ourselves but for the impact they may have on others. To see from other perspectives, to see reason in the decisions people make even if we disagree with them and even if they're at odds with our own, and using this as a lens to frame and act on our own instead of reckless, impulsive, emotion fuelled violence and the far reaching, often unseeable and unknowable consequences of our actions. You know, like the climatic end of the second game.
I'm fine with people disagreeing and obviously this is the work of an author that I am not and he/they are entitled to have their work be whatever it is they want it to be. But I really, truly do not believe the story in any way benefits from absolutism in the first game's climax, I feel it is tonally at odds with every strength within the narrative and character development across both games, and makes for vastly more boring, reductive storytelling and introspection.
For what it's worth though, I've also long thought the first game's rapid acceleration to a climax and the context within would have benefitted from a little bit more time, instead of the whiplash, somewhat contrived back-to-back drama fuel of "Hey Joel thanks for delivery Ellie. Okay you need to leave now because she's on an operating table and she will die in the medical process and that has to happen. Seeya". A bit more substance here and I feel I would have enjoyed it more, but you take what you're given.
It doesn't matter, Joel never thinks if he's dooming humanity or not and only saves Ellie for his selfish needs.
That said, I saw the fireflies like a really messy of a group at the end of the first game, never undestood why they would straight up kill the only human being imune to what's is supposed to be a fungal infection (for a vaccine? what?). It's worst in the second game when they made Abby's father some kind of unique genius that never documented his work or something.
Of course the cure being a real possibility works better for the story, especially considering Ellie's survivor's guilt. But the way the game (or more like its sequel) shows it never made much sense to me.
This.BooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooThe story is infinitely more interesting and thought provoking, particularly in regards to character motivations, actions, and subsequent consequences, when the climax of the first game is viewed through the lens of the unknown; that people and groups make decisions and take actions, sometimes decisively and recklessly, without knowing for sure what the totality of consequence will be, or being fundamentally unable to know if the risks taken are worth the cost.
I don't even care about the science behind it (which is dumb). Knowing the cure would/wouldn't work sucks shit and is a boring lame framing of the narrative. Not knowing adds a hefty ambiguity and weight to the choices made. People making decisions, or committing to causes, without ever fully knowing for sure how subsequent events will transpire, is literally how life works is is the ultimate fuel and weight behind our personal journey through guilt and accountability.
Also, the ambiguity doesn't change the fact that what Joel did was horrible. One thing doesn't cancel the other out.
I really liked that Joel and Ellie did have their talk after New Year's Eve in episode 6. ❤️
So they are doing a third season with Abby's story?
I was already wondering why she never appeared again in the last episodes.
He means Joel's killing or what's "the porch scene"?- Abby's motivation and the porch scene were moved up due to the reality that the second game needed multiple seasons to be fully adapted. Neil and Craig felt these elements wouldn't land if they kept the game's structure due to how long TV viewers would have to wait to get to them. There was a fear that the impact of these elements would have been lost due to people not remembering the previous season clearly enough to draw connections.
So they are doing a third season with Abby's story?
I was already wondering why she never appeared again in the last episodes.
I think it was obvious that they could make a vaccine and that was the most interesting part of TLoU's ending.
In my opinion, most people who like to think otherwise are those who didn't want to see death of Joel and wanted to find a reason to show that doctor was just going to kill Ellie without making a cure.
In my opinion, most people who like to think otherwise are those who didn't want to see death of Joel and wanted to find a reason to show that doctor was just going to kill Ellie without making a cure.
People thinking Joel as some kind of rational individual with the power of Dr Strange calculating all possible outcomes is funny. Neil in the first game's director commentary said the game is about how far a parent will go for his child. Him thinking that cure exists is the ultimate expression of that. The ending is grey because of it. Joel is a selfish bad guy when you are a third person living in that world but when you are put in his shoes you will understand his choice. Not necessarily agree but get him
Last edited:
Hi, as someone who has worked on fungal infections research, IF my theory about why Ellie is inmune (that the shows debunks, but I am going to ignore that) It shouldnt be very difficult to produce a vaccine.I always got the impression the game wanted you to skip through the bullshit and just assume the cure would work, but it's still mediocre writing at best:- the lead doctor was a veterinarian.
- the fireflies were desperate, lacking man power, and funds.
- literally almost zero testing on Ellie before Just wanting to rip her brain out of her skull
- literally zero attention given to the special circumstances that could have led to ellie being immune
Keep in mind that vaccines where created almost three hundred years ago with a cow. The fireflyes could totally have produced a cure.
This.Also, the ambiguity doesn't change the fact that what Joel did was horrible. One thing doesn't cancel the other out.
If there's a possibility that the cure wouldn't have been produced then what he did wasn't actually horrible. He would've saved Ellie from people who were going to kill her for nothing.
The story of the series as a whole works significantly better under the structure that the cure was undeniably. It makes Joel's decision carry more weight. It also makes Ellie's story stronger because she has to come to terms with the fact that the thing she felt gave her life purpose was taken away from her by the person that she cared about the most. And now she has to find a new purpose for her life all the while living with the knowledge that she is a walking cure that can never be.
You know, this is one of those things that could've been left ambiguous and up to one's interpretation.
Either way, I hope he doesn't start pulling a JK Rowling in the sense that he starts retconning shit after the fact and ruining the images we had in our head of TLOU's world and characters.
The problem is they 100% couldn't do it. It wasn't a decision when I played the game.
It's as believable as saying someone who got shot in the head with a shotgun at point blank range could survive in an apocalyptic world even as their head is missing.
Hindsight is 50/50, but Covid proved that any shred of belief in the idea of it being a viable option was gone.
Easy to wave away if it's all magic, but we are meant to believe it's a real thing.
Dude, shut up.
Maybe I don't want Part III. Kinda just seems more and more like a bad idea.
Did you write that theory down somewhere? I would love to read it.Hi, as someone who has worked on fungal infections research, IF my theory about why Ellie is inmune (that the shows debunks, but I am going to ignore that) It shouldnt be very difficult to produce a vaccine.Keep in mind that vaccines where created almost three hundred years ago with a cow. The fireflyes could totally have produced a cure.
It's genuinely better to not know if there was a certainty to it.
I'm still saving my daughter tho.
He goes into it more in the interview. The attitude stems from years of people coming in wanting to adapt their material while looking down on games. He saw tons of people who wanted to leverage the popularity of the franchises they created to attach to their own stories, which he viewed as dismissive of what they created. They wanted the name, but didn't care for anything else.I hate this kind of attitude. The idea that videogames needs to get validation by being compared to TV is ridiculous.
Last edited:
I hate this kind of attitude. The idea that videogames needs to get validation by being compared to TV is ridiculous.
It feels insecure, yes. Like when gaming events have a ton of Hollywood actors presenting stuff.
Watching the clip, he doesn't sound very insecure to me
It is. He murdered a bunch of his allies, a well-meaning if perhaps a bit misguided people, based on nothing but a gut feeling.If there's a possibility that the cure wouldn't have been produced then what he did wasn't actually horrible. He would've saved Ellie from people who were going to kill her for nothing.
Seemingly, the plan is to split each act of the game into a separate seasons.So they are doing a third season with Abby's story?
I was already wondering why she never appeared again in the last episodes.
The story makes it pretty clear that he knew what he did was wrong and selfish hence the need to lie about it because telling the truth meant losing Ellie. And TLOU2 doubles down on that because telling the truth made Ellie stop associating with him for an extended period of time after he was forced to tell the truth. again, it was genuinely never something implied to be ambiguous.Whether the cure would or wouldn't work doesn't change the justification or condemnation of Joel. If anything it enriches it. It transitions the narrative away from binary absolutes into a dissection of perspective and empathy, where unknowns and the human necessity to make decisions in regards to unknowns, critically or impulsively, is fundamental basis for human life and human interaction. The ambiguity of a cure does not absolve Joel of condemnation nor does it condemn him to murderous villainy. It does precisely the opposite. It frames Joel and his actions through the lens of perspective, forcing the audience to sit in an uncomfortable space of needing to empathise with Joel as to why he made the choices that he felt were genuinely right, being able to feel why he felt this was right, and still being able to condemn him for it, precisely because of the impulsivity and recklessness and his belief that the cure would work.
Because she doesn't appear at all during Ellie's three days until the very very end.He means Joel's killing or what's "the porch scene"?
So they are doing a third season with Abby's story?
I was already wondering why she never appeared again in the last episodes.
The fireflies aren't his allies. He was doing it for a job they gave him in exchange for payment. A payment they couldn't fulfill mind you because they suffered enough on the way to the hospital that a lone man could wipe out what was left. And I could've sworn there was a note in the first game that outright stated that the only reason they didn't kill Joel was because of Marlene.It is. He murdered a bunch of his allies, a well-meaning if perhaps a bit misguided people, based on nothing but a gut feeling.
Last edited:
He never once doubted that it would work though.
Even if he did we all know he would act the same.
Honestly, the first game really does make it seem unclear and you can't just trust anyone in that world.
You know, ignore whether or nor the cure would work.
Why would you just take the word of people who broke their word to you, assaulted you, at gun point, with absolute no guarantee they just won't kill you once you're far enough. You can't really put Joel through that and act like he's the bad guy.
Wouldn't it be enough to take some of her blood and make a vaccine with her antibodies?
Never understood why she would have to die for that…
He was talking about the scene with Ellie and Joel's talk at the end of episode 6 as well as Abby's motivation for killing Joel, which was revealed in episodes 1/2. In the game, the porch scene is much later. Abby's motivation also isn't revealed until halfway through the game. They decided to reveal/show these things earlier since they didn't want show-only people to wait years between seasons to understand motivations.He means Joel's killing or what's "the porch scene"?
So they are doing a third season with Abby's story?
I was already wondering why she never appeared again in the last episodes.
And yeah, Neil talked about how season 3 will be Abby's story in the interview.
It is. He murdered a bunch of his allies, a well-meaning if perhaps a bit misguided people, based on nothing but a gut feeling.
He would've murdered a bunch of people who were going to kill a kid. Few outside of their family or friends are going to feel empathy for people who were doing that. And when he tells Tommy, "I saved her.", he would mean that for real and not just from his point of view.
People keep claiming the ambiguity is interesting here, but i've yet to see anyone explain why it's interesting for this specific story about a man who'd choose his child over the world. And also what that means for his child as she grows up.
But the internet told me that after 20 years of living in an apocalyptic hell humanity was now far too mean and said too many bad words and thus no one should ever try to change or improve things somewhat
Thanks. I really need to replay the second game, I completely forgot the timeline and some events.He was talking about the scene with Ellie and Joel's talk at the end of episode 6 as well as Abby's motivation for killing Joel, which was revealed in episodes 1/2. In the game, the porch scene is much later. Abby's motivation also isn't revealed until halfway through the game. They decided to reveal/show these things earlier since they didn't want show-only people to wait years between seasons to understand motivations.And yeah, Neil talked about how season 3 will be Abby's story in the interview.
Never understood why people thought they couldn't.That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good.
There's a collectible note that says that multiple subjects had been operated on before Ellie and every time it was a failure. I imagine people took this and assumed that meant it was destined to fail again.
However, the ending doesn't work as well if the fireflies were barking up the wrong tree again. The argument could be made that depriving Ellie of autonomy is bad enough, but there's also the counter argument that preventing a person with survivors guilt ending their life is a fully right thing to do.
In depriving the world of a cure to the cordyceps, Joel indisputably does a net wrong to satisfy his rediscovered Dad instincts, making the choice more dramatically interesting.
Yes, but I dont remember where. I can write It again when I get home.Did you write that theory down somewhere? I would love to read it.
But the short version is: Ellie isnt special, her cordyceps is.
This was supposed to be ambiguous?
I thought the whole reason people liked this ending and call it morally complex was because of Joel's decision to save Ellie over humanity? Making it ambiguous dilutes that
The whole ending to the game always felt rushed to me anyway, I never felt it was particularly good
That just seems like something you take for granted like Ellie's immunity. They both operate under the same narrative magic - there's no scientific explanation given, so there's no scientific bounds.
For what it's worth, I think the temptation of a cure is a lot more compelling in the world the game builds.
The show's additions to the zombie lore, the hive mind, the infected becoming smarter after 25 years, the evolution of the spores, the fungus growing into pipes and reacting to stimuli…. all that shit makes the threat much more pervasive.
A cure matters a lot less when breaking a clogged sewage pipe can call hundreds of infected to your heavily fortified base. Sure you can inoculate people from falling to the infection, but you cannot protect against getting ripped apart or stalked for hours and ambushed.
Of course, across both stories perhaps the biggest problem is that it's been so long since outbreak day, there are entire generations of people that are irrevocably broken. You've got raiders, serial killer cannibals, religious cults, paramilitary groups. A vaccine won't fix that either.
He never once doubted that it would work though.
this is a bit like in the show people wanted him to shrug his shoulders with an ambiguous answer when Ellie asked 'would it work'? But at that moment - at least for the show - nothing but a yes/no would have worked.
And in the game, at that moment - its not even a consideration. There aren't a little devil on one shoulder going 'kill them all' and an angel on the other going 'but she could cure so many people think of the greater good'. They're going to kill his baby girl and thats the end of the though process - he will not let that happen.
anything else is an afterthought - maybe it sits in the minds of the viewer/player which is fine as an extra layer
I'm not sure how the player is misled?
Everything about the Fireflies seems sketchy as shit. That makes the player reasonably believe that they're just delusional and that they don't have the ability to find a cure. I'm not sure how anyone didn't laugh out loud when they were like "lul this person is vital for the cure. first thing on list? kill immune person kek." It makes them seem irrational, desperate and unreliable. Even the fact that they'd hire someone like Joel is sketchy.
Loading...
Loading...
You may also like...
Loading...
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x0:751x2)/jason-momoa-Adria-Arjona-tout-052225-65102b5ffde64e819a81f4ad4eb3853c.jpg)
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x0:751x2)/Alix-Earle-051625-1-04717124604641d0868d6c4b7e885683.jpg)
