Good afternoon, dear readers! If someone saw this article on Zen, then in order to avoid misunderstandings I will explain-it was written by me and now in the end she has a postscript about the publication here under a different name.
Honestly, claims to many scolded events and ideas of the plot – by itself, in the separation of the plot – no – no. (The plot is what happened to the characters, and the plot is how and in what sequence about what happened was told to the consumer)
The main claims are as follows:
Firstly, The authors violate the golden rule of a good story – not to tell the viewer that he should think and feel on the subject of the plot. Do not explain how little children are good, but this is bad, this character is right, but this one is not. We will return to this later.
The whole plot is spent on moralization. All watches go to ensure that Ellie score scores of destruction, Abby is the point of creation, and nothing happens except for the flushing of the truths: “Avenge badly”, “enemies are also people”. All. A whole sect exists only so that the protected children shade Abbi’s actions with their enemy origin.
In addition, the plot was also spent on truly beaten truths: enemies are also people who are able to love, there are reasons for everything, cruelty destroys, revenge is infinite, etc. p. Drakmann believes this will be an unexpected discovery for the player? He believes that it is not enough to show this unobtrusive layer of meaning to an interesting plot, you need to make the beaten truth the main one, chew and put on a saucer so that the player does not confuse, who is right and who is not?
Secondly, The plot’s course is ineffective, and even abounds with too direct techniques for creating the necessary emotions in the player. We would not have noticed them if they were not put at the forefront. Basically, these things are concentrated around Abby, because successful switching to its line requires to squeeze the maximum from the methods of drama. And the maximum is squeezed so hard that each reception becomes too noticeable. Understanding the character of Abby occurs quickly, and the further accumulation of “pluses” in the piggy bank of her moral correctness is felt as a manipulation of the player. Probably, those who believe that it was worth starting Ebbie’s line before the murder of Joel and to weave with the Ellie line – the same events would not seem so deliberate.
What are these tricks?
Papa Abby without any jokes is All British Casino shown the best person in both parts of the game, the standard of purity and untouched Apocalypse. Speaking in simple language, he is a real sun and bunny. He loved animals, forgot about everything in the world for the help of Zebra’s birth, joked, laughed and was affectionate with his daughter (Joel Polaovsky to the Apocalypse, yes?) A considerable set. Frankly, a weighty set of what the audience briefly call the "tear".
Ebbi and Ellie have talking parallels, some of which emphasize the same humanity of protagonists and antagonists (walks along the museum and oceanarium, pretty flashlights in locations), while others, on the contrary, indicate which of them still looks better according to the author (the murder of the pregnant woman: Ellie put the minus, killed, his father and daughter;In the subject of the victims for the sake of science: Ellie and Joel get a minus, Abby and his father – plus (her father, thank God, did not answer the theoretical question about the sacrifice of Abby, and he himself, of course, will not know the answer until she is under a knife. However, the scenes of the players are shown, and a superficial look may well calculate the glasses of Pope Abby, as if he were “more right”. Although there are no right here). Drakmann is asked in an interview about parallels, and he replies that yes, this, of course, is not an accident, and he wanted to make them unobtrusive. But it turned out very intrusive.
In dramaturgy there is a reception of the spectator with an antagonist called “stroke the dog” or “save the cat” (easily google). This includes kindness to the old people, animals and children. Around Abby and her friends there is a lot of kindness for dogs and games with them, and the fact that she offers to choose a gift to the boy so that he does not be upset, and we even play this for some time, also passes in this category.
To invest direct opinions of the author in the character’s mouth is already a very monoton. Appeal to Abby: “You are good!"Or her own:“ We have not killed you, but what are you doing?!" – after that the player does not need to have his own opinions and feelings – take the author’s feelings and feel them.
Abby puts life for children. Actually, do not enter one river twice. The reception is good once, the Duet “Adult-Rebel” was already played by Ellie and Joel, so at the beginning of this branch the feeling of secondary and technical design “Mirror” spoils the impression. And then, metamorphoses with Joel took place for almost a year, and Abby, protecting children, begins to resist his associates in two days. Associates, people from their pack. In two days. Leo asks her: “Why do you save us? You don’t owe us anything ". (They really saved each other and paid “debts”) Abby replies: “I need this myself”. But no, the scriptwriters need it. For the end and in order to become morally right in two days.
The big minus of the layout is that the scene of the meeting of Ellie and Abby breaks off, and half of the game remains until it continues. Waiting for the continuation in the future of something very bright and significant depreciates what is happening right here and now. The stronger you wait, the more annoying all the interference seem to be on the way to the desired. Many players noted annoyance and boredom when they understood that they were going to the side of the side to the hospital with Abby, who did not move the plot in any way and pulls the time to the desired scene (such a quest serves to reveal the character, it is not important and sags for the plot.)
Also, an ineffective layout can be attributed to the history of the relationship between Ellie and Joel-now this whole topic looks on the side of the handle, something mechanically added to enhance the degree of emotions and explain the final act of Ellie. And in order to be considered a continuation of the first part, you must somehow connect these games? Otherwise the second, perhaps, could be made in a completely different universe, it would not have changed in any way.
And yet, no layout spoils the game as the author’s pointer.
Is it in the first part to indicate to us what to think? We saw a chain of actions, sometimes their consequences, and if one of the players did not feel something, these were his problems. How many wonderful books we reread at different ages with different experience and find that we see them differently? This is absolutely normal, and it makes stories attractive, alive, forcing to think and understand. In the first part, Drakmann did not tell us what he thinks about Joel’s final act, and even about his past. Impressive players could easily throw out the moments from memory when Tommy accuses Joel of a nightmare, and Ellie asks about actions on the other side of the barricades, and love the character as a good guy. Less impressionable received a complex image and could love or not love him at their discretion. Less amlying exclaimed: “And, so he is not a good guy at all! Everything is clear!" – and for them the game had a completely different taste. All this was the player’s business, the story is good.
In the second part, everything is considered for us. It seems that the only goal of the game is to listen to what the author thinks on the topic, and sway on emotional swing. And think a little at the end, but not about what is right and what is not, or how, damn it, two truths are terribly encountered;And about how the character still came to the fact that the author is strictly post-tuned. Indeed, how?
Proceeding to the end, one cannot help but mention the plot crutch with a shift Tommy. Tommy from the prologue of the first part is shown by a large humanist and caring guy, in the second he deceives Ellie to do all the work himself and protect her from danger, and when he meets with the guys and finds out about Dina, he definitely turns home. We do not know whether he was going to go a second time or not, but to arrange Ellie a scandal so that she would go, and even one, this is something out of the ordinary. And not because “inaccurate” – people change, but not for the sake of the scriptwriter and clumsy pushing the plot. The move looks miserable.
Drakmann says that Ellie spared Abby, realizing why Joel saved her in the past. With the current event row, this is like a puzzle that needs to be solved with the mind after the game, and not feel with the character. Yes, we players saw that Abby literally turned into Joel when he struggled with his “dogs”, but Ellie did not see this. Yes, Ebbi removed from the “Cross” looks completely different and acts, like another person, thinking only about the child. Probably Drakmann wanted to show that this new image immediately influenced Ellie, but, dumbfounded and brutalized, she could not digest him to the end and easily let go of Abby. This is probably why the handle is being started, because the one who wants to kill and has weapons will simply kill, but the hand -to -hand person is very convenient for the script. (Although the animal desire is longer in the moment of revenge, to approve it and establish itself in it yourself, make revenge more profitable and more thoroughly than the shot, also has a place to be, and we saw it at the beginning of the game.)
As a result, Ellie wins and quite affirms her revenge, she, in general, has already taken the life of Abby, t.To. A couple more seconds – and that is dead, the goal has been achieved. And then she returns this life. It was probably Drakmann that it was very beautiful and subtle, but the testers did not understand why Ellie released Abby. The flashback there, as they say in an interview, was not initially, and they put him just because of misunderstanding. But there was an idea to send Ellie to the island of Shramov, where emotional prerequisites for the final decision would probably have appeared, and Ellie and Abby could be “met” with a child. But Ellie didn’t see them. But you never know what the players saw! The character is forced to experience insight in the last five minutes of the game and turn everything upside down, this is too much.
For another interpretation, Ellie, like the player, is much more prerequisites, but, again, the testers did not understand anything, although they had all fragments of Puzzle in their hands. Then the flashback about the beginning of reconciliation with Joel is made by the key to understanding, but during drowning they include only three seconds, and they are completely shown in the epilogue, so you have to comprehend it retroactively, building the entire chain again. But this flashback speaks of another reason for mercy.
Now it became obvious that at the time of the death of the enemy, Ellie realized that she could not sleep and not because Joel killer was walking under the sun, but because Ellie herself caused Joel the pain and did not manage to restore the relationship, taking up this only on the eve of his death. I realized that her own figure in this interrupted story has much greater weight than the figure of Abby. That it is not possible to live only because of itself, hatred of yourself more hatred of Abby. This discovery is already able to put everything upside down. About this reason, about wine, directly speaks in an interview with gross.
But think about it, the testers had all these flashbacks in their hands and still did not feel the answer. Drakmann, whether you managed to convey your thought through events, where the character Ellie did not change in any way, performing monotonous actions, but only the player’s awareness and his emotions on the theme changed?
In conclusion, a little more on the topic of the piggy bank wrong Ellie. The lost fingers alone could replace half of the evidence of how the wrong she was, because she lost everything to zero, even a game on the guitar, a symbol of communication with Joel-a connection due to which it all started. (In general, you can easily retrain to the right hand, but they show us what they show). Gross, the co -author of Drakmann, says in an interview that in the final Ellie turned a new page of life;Some players say in a positive way that “she let go,” and yes, she, of course, let go, but with entire fingers everything would be exactly the same. And even better would fit into the “new page” and release – but just perfect, as if by notes. Sadness would not have disappeared – the guitar is left, this is enough (by the way, it will quickly come to the end of the open window). But there are no fingers. Drakmann evasively says that there are many interpretations and all the right ones, and following the whole chain that he built for Ellie, one more evidence of her complete collapse is visible here. Gross wants Ellie to find new love, calm and protection – wonderful, but the things shown are not like a new beginning, they look like an ongoing end. For which someday, already outside the game, a page may turn over.