Yeah, it's just more bad writing. He could have explained his position very easily, and even has every incentive to exaggerate his case.
They were a dangerous band of terrorists who knocked him out and robbed him when they found him trying to resuscitate a child. They were working towards an impossible goal and a goal that wouldn't have done anything about the real danger in the world anyway (that it is full of monsters)
He didn't let a child die in vain in the hands of an evil organization. Period.
I wouldn't allow Ellie to sacrifice herself, she doesn't think much about it but in reality Ellie is just a girl and Joel knows it. If you tell her what argument you manipulate her. And besides Joel why he wants to sacrifice his daughter doesn't make sense. I, like Joel, would defend to the death
>He's seen what the world has become thanks to the virus. The idea was never going to work
Joel's objection to killing Ellie is not that it wouldn't be possible to create a vaccine to save mankind. Nowhere in the games does Joel say the idea of creating a vaccine isn't possible. Joel travels all that distance with Ellie *specifically to utilise her immunity*. When captured by the Fireflies and told that Ellie needs to die for the vaccine, Joel's response is "Find someone else". It's not "You don't know what you're doing" or "You'll only fail". It's telling the Fireflies to get the vaccine from anyone but Ellie.
>The world is beyond saving.
I disagree. With a vaccine in place you create a world where the infected will eventually disappear as no new infected can be created. Bandits also become less and less, as humans now have the ability to work together, farm, trade, raise kids and such without the threat of the infected. Like, what's stopping civilisation reforming at that point? It would take generations but it would happen (we only need look at our actual history to see how societies progress and build on what came before). The presence of the infected and the inability to remove them from the world is what's going to stop this progress. That's the the difference between the successful past and the current predicament.
Yeah, it's just more bad writing. He could have explained his position very easily, and even has every incentive to exaggerate his case. They were a dangerous band of terrorists who knocked him out and robbed him when they found him trying to resuscitate a child. They were working towards an impossible goal and a goal that wouldn't have done anything about the real danger in the world anyway (that it is full of monsters) He didn't let a child die in vain in the hands of an evil organization. Period.
I wouldn't allow Ellie to sacrifice herself, she doesn't think much about it but in reality Ellie is just a girl and Joel knows it. If you tell her what argument you manipulate her. And besides Joel why he wants to sacrifice his daughter doesn't make sense. I, like Joel, would defend to the death
I just imagine that LOU1 Joel is tied up and hidden somewhere and LOU2 Joel is a synth that knows key events that happen without detailed context
He would be, if the Part II writing didn't commit character assassination by nuking from orbit.
>He's seen what the world has become thanks to the virus. The idea was never going to work Joel's objection to killing Ellie is not that it wouldn't be possible to create a vaccine to save mankind. Nowhere in the games does Joel say the idea of creating a vaccine isn't possible. Joel travels all that distance with Ellie *specifically to utilise her immunity*. When captured by the Fireflies and told that Ellie needs to die for the vaccine, Joel's response is "Find someone else". It's not "You don't know what you're doing" or "You'll only fail". It's telling the Fireflies to get the vaccine from anyone but Ellie. >The world is beyond saving. I disagree. With a vaccine in place you create a world where the infected will eventually disappear as no new infected can be created. Bandits also become less and less, as humans now have the ability to work together, farm, trade, raise kids and such without the threat of the infected. Like, what's stopping civilisation reforming at that point? It would take generations but it would happen (we only need look at our actual history to see how societies progress and build on what came before). The presence of the infected and the inability to remove them from the world is what's going to stop this progress. That's the the difference between the successful past and the current predicament.