cheers, darric. i was wondering what the impetus behind all that was
that nyt piece is a good article. it's hardly a review, in the most basic sense, but it's the kind of critical discourse through a particular - if somewhat askew and immediately irrelevant - lens that games need to be able to stand up to to seriously mature. i feel like the last of us stands up pretty damned well.
Is anyone else finding that the controller response is a tad sluggish? I'm noticing a slight delay that isn't game breaking, but is making aiming a little frustrating at times.
I thought it might have been my TV not being in game mode, but I checked and it's set correctly. And other games are working ok as far as I can tell, so it just seems to be this game.
Man. This game. I had to actually take a break away from it because
the hotel basement really, REALLY freaks me out. I got to the door, found out I needed a key card, and my dread level just skyrocketed. Snuck my way over to it expecting a jump scare, just WAITING for it, and nothing. Then I try the card and find out I have to turn on the generator. FUCK.
So I crawl back to it, turn it on, go oh! okay! And then the shrieking starts, and I get torn apart. Again and again and again.
It actually took like 10 minutes after closing the game down to make my heart beat normally. Apparently I can just run to the door with the keycard? I will have to do that. I might cry the whole way out of sheer terror though.
Something I really, really appreciate is the fact that even though I've died a crazy amount of times, it's still unnerving whenever it happens. Maybe a little less so when I get shot to death, but when I get broken in some kind of melee, especially in one-hit-kill situations? It's hard to repress a bit of a squeal sometimes. I think it's partially because of how quickly the load time is between the death and going back to a checkpoint, and partially because of that incredibly sudden cut to black after seeing poor Joel go down screaming. I actually love that! It really broke the tension for me in Amnesia and Resident Evil and other horror games when you'd get thrown the same death message over and over again, and it became much less scary to actually die. This is just masterfully done, here.
Seriously, amazing job @beavotron, @Darric, and @Fission Mailed!! You guys have become one of my absolute favourite developers between this and Uncharted, and I'm super, super excited to see where you guys go next!
Is anyone else finding that the controller response is a tad sluggish?
i feel like a certain amount of that is intentional. it was an effect that was noticeable in uncharted, and is even more noticeable here: a weight to movement that is a bit treacley, but represents the fact that you really can't instantaneously swing your arms and aim around, much less your body, as quickly as most games would have you doing it. increasing the sensitivity helps a bit if it's the shooting that's troubling you, and also remembering to use your quick-turns (left stick back and X)
When I restarted the game, I think I got ahead of the game's scripting and it couldn't handle it
Early on where you have to look behind that car to find a ladder, I went right there, since I knew it was there
Propped up the ladder, climbed up
Meanwhile Tess is below, saying "No ladder here. Hey, maybe look over there." I tried progressing farther into the building to see if she would climb up after, but she didn't. Instead the screen went to black for a few seconds and then it teleported me outside, with no ladder against the building. I guess you have to follow the scripting down to a T.
Is anyone else finding that the controller response is a tad sluggish?
i feel like a certain amount of that is intentional. it was an effect that was noticeable in uncharted, and is even more noticeable here: a weight to movement that is a bit treacley, but represents the fact that you really can't instantaneously swing your arms and aim around, much less your body, as quickly as most games would have you doing it. increasing the sensitivity helps a bit if it's the shooting that's troubling you, and also remembering to use your quick-turns (left stick back and X)
Yeah I kind of felt it may have been an intentional thing. Ah well. I've been getting pretty used to it anyway, so it's not so bad.
I can't beat this one combat scenario that the game forces you into
Please don't force me into combat, game.
And I couldn't honestly give a FUCK about whether or not it's realistic to have to go into your backpack to switch weapons, it's a goddamn hassle to do in battle and I consider it a major strike against
the way the backpack works is easily one of my favorite things about this game
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
+9
Options
Raijin QuickfootI'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I love that when I die I feel like it's because I screwed up not because the game is cheap.
notes on survivor mode - not-really spoilers from the early game:
pickups are sparse. anything not proton pills or weapon parts (which seem largely unaffected) are rare to come by, unless they're part of a tutorial screen or necessary for whatever reason. i have a feeling loot is randomized based on set spawn points in this game, and survivor mode spawns next to naught. we just met with bill and i think i've had enough supplies to craft, what, two shivs and two health kits? forget molotovs - what a luxury that'd be! the lead pipe with the scissors taped on in lincoln was also the second melee weapon i found, the first being the two-by-four in the dock area before you get robert.
you have to be very, very creative. i could not do it without having already beaten the game, which in its progress turns you into a sleek murder machine. the great thing about this mode is it's not insta-death, you can still cop a bullet or get caught by a clicker - the enemies aren't gratuitously better - you just have to pay the price when you make mistakes. i love it. it is intensely satisfying... at least up to this stage.
0
Options
BeastehTHAT WOULD NOTKILL DRACULARegistered Userregular
it niggles me how you can tell if you're about to fight stuff by the room layout
The Last of Us aspires to be an interactive, mixed-company version of “The Road,” in this case the story of the relationship between an older man and a 14-year-old girl as they try to survive in an oppressive and deadly wasteland. Almost throughout, however, it is actually the story of Joel, the older man. This is another video game by men, for men and about men.
You know how sometimes someone thinks the Bechdel test is like, an actual test, which you use to pass or fail individual stories, instead of a way of examining larger trends? That's pretty much what this review feels like, except using Anita Sarkeesian instead. It's utterly dunderheaded. The female characters are bad. Why? He doesn't say, except that you control Joel in combat and therefore the game is just about Joel. Except for those times when you don't control Joel.
uh
I hate to say it but this review might actually have a point
four hourish spoilers
between Sarah and Tess both dying and having a huge impact on Joel's characterization, they both do act as a variation on women in the refrigerator, albeit not nearly as egregious as most examples Anita uses
at least Ellie can handle herself and has her own agency, and Marlene too
I just don't buy it
spoilers on character deaths throughout the whole game
Being stuffed in a refrigerator means more than just a character dies who happens to be a woman. She was an interesting character who had her own motivations and certainly wasn't subservient to Joel, and her death is not because of powerlessness, but rather her choosing how she wants to go out. If anything her death was necessary because up until then she was generally the one who made the decisions in their partnership, and now it moves the burden of decision-making to Joel.
Sarah's not required to be a daughter, but she is required to be the same sex as Elli, because a major part of Joel's relationship with Elli is how she kind of reminds him of his dead daughter in a very instinctual, subconscious kind of way. Now if Elli had been an Eli, Sarah could've been replaced with a son and still died, but in that case we're just removing a complex female character from the game, so how does that do anything to help out feminism in games? Elli is not Yorda from Ico, but that NY Times critique treats them as basically the same thing - despite him saying how he was A) fascinated by Eli's characterization, and that the story wasn't about her and all the female characters characterization was bad. It's not even internally consistent.
This is a story about Joel AND Elli, and their relationship. Un-serious, over-simplification of its elements and then complaints based on those over-simplifications is not something that video games need to deal with in order to be Taken Seriously. Not that there's not good debates to be having, but this guy's not one of them. And it's especially hard not to eyeroll when it's coming from the NY Times, the folks with such a touch on the beating pulse of feminism that their game of thrones reviews consist of, "Women are obviously physically incapable of liking a fantasy show, except that there's some porn in there so I guess they watch it because of that."
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
it niggles me how you can tell if you're about to fight stuff by the room layout
This usually bugs me too, but there's definitely more than a few environments in this game that break that mould.
Yeah, it was especially obvious early in the game I thought. My friend even exclaimed, "OH SHIT, CHEST HIGH WALLS!" in that first shooting scene.
But later on I didn't really notice it as much, it fit in with the environment much more naturally.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I an trying to decide if this is a game I should buy our just watch someone else play thorough. I mean, I know what response i'm gonna get here, but still
My friend is working on a roguelike game you can play if you want to. (It has free demo)
I an trying to decide if this is a game I should buy our just watch someone else play thorough. I mean, I know what response i'm gonna get here, but still
It actually does make for a pretty good watching experience. ...As long as you're not watching an asshole who jogs by conversations
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
0
Options
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
Also you need to be okay with watching someone thoroughly search an are for any possible salvage before moving on.
The Last of Us aspires to be an interactive, mixed-company version of “The Road,” in this case the story of the relationship between an older man and a 14-year-old girl as they try to survive in an oppressive and deadly wasteland. Almost throughout, however, it is actually the story of Joel, the older man. This is another video game by men, for men and about men.
You know how sometimes someone thinks the Bechdel test is like, an actual test, which you use to pass or fail individual stories, instead of a way of examining larger trends? That's pretty much what this review feels like, except using Anita Sarkeesian instead. It's utterly dunderheaded. The female characters are bad. Why? He doesn't say, except that you control Joel in combat and therefore the game is just about Joel. Except for those times when you don't control Joel.
uh
I hate to say it but this review might actually have a point
four hourish spoilers
between Sarah and Tess both dying and having a huge impact on Joel's characterization, they both do act as a variation on women in the refrigerator, albeit not nearly as egregious as most examples Anita uses
at least Ellie can handle herself and has her own agency, and Marlene too
I just don't buy it
spoilers on character deaths throughout the whole game
Being stuffed in a refrigerator means more than just a character dies who happens to be a woman. She was an interesting character who had her own motivations and certainly wasn't subservient to Joel, and her death is not because of powerlessness, but rather her choosing how she wants to go out. If anything her death was necessary because up until then she was generally the one who made the decisions in their partnership, and now it moves the burden of decision-making to Joel.
Sarah's not required to be a daughter, but she is required to be the same sex as Elli, because a major part of Joel's relationship with Elli is how she kind of reminds him of his dead daughter. Now if Elli had been an Eli, Sarah could've been replaced with a son and still died, but in that case we're just removing a complex female character from the game, so how does that do anything to help out feminism in games? Elli is not Yorda from Ico, but that NY Times critique treats them as basically the same thing - despite him saying how he was A) fascinated by Eli's characterization, and that the story wasn't about her and all the female characters characterization was bad. It's not even internally consistent.
This is a story about Joel AND Elli, and their relationship. Un-serious, over-simplification of its elements and then complaints based on those over-simplifications is not something that video games need to deal with in order to be Taken Seriously. Not that there's not good debates to be having, but this guy's not one of them. And it's especially hard not to eyeroll when it's coming from the NY Times, the folks with such a touch on the beating pulse of feminism that their game of thrones reviews consist of, "Women are obviously physically incapable of liking a fantasy show, except that there's some porn in there so I guess they watch it because of that."
there is one word the article really needed to address to justify the point, and in this word's absence the argument ultimately fails
it's 'protagonist.' it is a pretty basic word for a review of a narrative
Well I mean, I was playing on hard and it wouldn't let me pick up any more scissors
And I couldn't get rid of any in my inventory because I didn't have the bindings to make shivs, but I had three shivs anyways, so even if I did have bindings, it wouldn't let me
I am conflicted about the ending. I mean, within the scope of Joel and Ellie's relationship, it's really good and satisfying in a bittersweet way, but in a big picture 'fate of mankind' way Joel is a termendously selfish asshole and has doomed mankind to have to deal with the threat of cordycepts for at least the immediate future.
I am conflicted about the ending. I mean, within the scope of Joel and Ellie's relationship, it's really good and satisfying in a bittersweet way, but in a big picture 'fate of mankind' way Joel is a termendously selfish asshole and has doomed mankind to have to deal with the threat of cordycepts for at least the immediate future.
It's definitely meant to be morally complex
MEGA ENDING SHPOILERS
But you can 100% understand how Joel could simply never bear to let Elli die. ESPECIALLY after the way his escape with her echoes his failed attempt to save his own daughter 20 years ago, trying to run away while holding Elli in his arms (which btw, is the scene that finally just plain made me start crying). Like while he certainly loves Elli as Elli, you can really notice in his dialogue right near the end of the game how in a way Elli has also become a replacement Sarah for him, and in the end how he totally lies to her about how everything's going to be fine and she can't help, because he knows that she'd probably choose to sacrifice her own life for a cure. Or the audio tapes of whats her face, who herself is horribly conflicted over killing Elli but knows it's the right thing to do, as terrible as it is.
It's also worth remembering who killed Sarah and broke Joel's soul in the first place - it wasn't cordyceps, it was a US soldier. Joel's had 20 years to stew on the idea of authority choosing to sacrifices innocents for the greater good. Killing Sarah didn't stop cordyceps, so why should killing Elli?
I really think it's a brilliant ending, as you're simultaneously tremendously attached to Elli and the idea of breaking her down for parts on the chance of a cure is just horrifying and impossible... And yet at the same time you can see how this may be the best possible choice. The fireflies position absolutely makes sense (and it's a great touch that when you bust into the surgery room and shoot the doctor about to murder an innocent anesthetized 14 year old girl, the nurse screams and calls YOU a monster.
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I am conflicted about the ending. I mean, within the scope of Joel and Ellie's relationship, it's really good and satisfying in a bittersweet way, but in a big picture 'fate of mankind' way Joel is a termendously selfish asshole and has doomed mankind to have to deal with the threat of cordycepts for at least the immediate future.
has he, though? it's not an unsubtle point of the story that the cordyceps are a far inferior threat than human malice. the fungus is a rotten, dumb poison that lurks underground, unable to break even a single industrious paranoiac's grasp over a forgotten town. tommy's new utopia suffers not from zombie raids but those of organized hunters. the story is designed that you feel that, not just intellectually, but emotionally; the call-backs during the denoument to joel carrying a broken babe-in-arms to safety, only to be crushed by the cruel but utilitarian acts of humans, is not a coincidence. he saw how that panned out the first time it happened.
this is a tale of modernity. there are no easy answers, of course: that joel has to lie - more to himself than to ellie - about this is significant. we can't know if ellie's sacrifice would have made a difference, that's not how science works. the indications are there, but there is no curing pill yet. all we need to know is that a decision was made and we can move on. we lie to move on. because we're selfish sometimes. because we do terrible things. that this girl will fix the world is a lie. joel's idea, that maybe if that first soldier hadn't shot his daughter, everything would be okay - that maybe simple empathy can solve all this, and we'll live, we'll keep living - is a lie too. that's how we cope. we lie.
I am conflicted about the ending. I mean, within the scope of Joel and Ellie's relationship, it's really good and satisfying in a bittersweet way, but in a big picture 'fate of mankind' way Joel is a termendously selfish asshole and has doomed mankind to have to deal with the threat of cordycepts for at least the immediate future.
has he, though? it's not an unsubtle point of the story that the cordyceps are a far inferior threat than human malice. the fungus is a rotten, dumb poison that lurks underground, unable to break even a single industrious paranoiac's grasp over a forgotten town. tommy's new utopia suffers not from zombie raids but those of organized hunters. the story is designed that you feel that, not just intellectually, but emotionally; the call-backs during the denoument to joel carrying a broken babe-in-arms to safety, only to be crushed by the cruel but utilitarian acts of humans, is not a coincidence. he saw how that panned out the first time it happened.
this is a tale of modernity. there are no easy answers, of course: that joel has to lie - more to himself than to ellie - about this is significant. we can't know if ellie's sacrifice would have made a difference, that's not how science works. the indications are there, but there is no curing pill yet. all we need to know is that a decision was made and we can move on. we lie to move on. because we're selfish sometimes. because we do terrible things. that this girl will fix the world is a lie. joel's idea, that maybe if that first soldier hadn't shot his daughter, everything would be okay - that maybe simple empathy can solve all this, and we'll live, we'll keep living - is a lie too. that's how we cope. we lie.
Yeah, if you think about the phrases that get repeated over and over again at the ends of story arcs
It's almost always variations on "I'm just doing what I have to to survive"
Early Joel arguing with Tess: "We're shitty people, Joel" "No, we are survivors!"
Henry after leaving Joel to die argues that he did what he had to survive, and Joel would have done the same thing
Joel argues with Tommy, saying that he kept him alive, and Tommy argues that what they did wasn't worth it
David argues that he's no different from Joel and Elli, killing others in order to survive
And then Marlene at the hospital gives a similar justification herself
But you can tell that as Joel grows more and more attached to Elli he begins rejecting that selfish definition of survival, he cares more about Elli than his own life, and he tries to explain the idea to her in the very last scene, "I struggled for a long time with survivin'... No matter what, you keep finding something to fight for." Ironically he's valuing Elli's life over his own survival... Even as he prevents Elli from sacrificing her own survival for a greater good.
And at the end they're going back to Tommy's, the settlement that's about more than just survivin'.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Posts
that nyt piece is a good article. it's hardly a review, in the most basic sense, but it's the kind of critical discourse through a particular - if somewhat askew and immediately irrelevant - lens that games need to be able to stand up to to seriously mature. i feel like the last of us stands up pretty damned well.
holy shit, joel.
I thought it might have been my TV not being in game mode, but I checked and it's set correctly. And other games are working ok as far as I can tell, so it just seems to be this game.
Steam ID - VeldrinD | SS Post | Wishlist
So I crawl back to it, turn it on, go oh! okay! And then the shrieking starts, and I get torn apart. Again and again and again.
It actually took like 10 minutes after closing the game down to make my heart beat normally. Apparently I can just run to the door with the keycard? I will have to do that. I might cry the whole way out of sheer terror though.
Something I really, really appreciate is the fact that even though I've died a crazy amount of times, it's still unnerving whenever it happens. Maybe a little less so when I get shot to death, but when I get broken in some kind of melee, especially in one-hit-kill situations? It's hard to repress a bit of a squeal sometimes. I think it's partially because of how quickly the load time is between the death and going back to a checkpoint, and partially because of that incredibly sudden cut to black after seeing poor Joel go down screaming. I actually love that! It really broke the tension for me in Amnesia and Resident Evil and other horror games when you'd get thrown the same death message over and over again, and it became much less scary to actually die. This is just masterfully done, here.
Seriously, amazing job @beavotron, @Darric, and @Fission Mailed!! You guys have become one of my absolute favourite developers between this and Uncharted, and I'm super, super excited to see where you guys go next!
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
i feel like a certain amount of that is intentional. it was an effect that was noticeable in uncharted, and is even more noticeable here: a weight to movement that is a bit treacley, but represents the fact that you really can't instantaneously swing your arms and aim around, much less your body, as quickly as most games would have you doing it. increasing the sensitivity helps a bit if it's the shooting that's troubling you, and also remembering to use your quick-turns (left stick back and X)
Early on where you have to look behind that car to find a ladder, I went right there, since I knew it was there
Propped up the ladder, climbed up
Meanwhile Tess is below, saying "No ladder here. Hey, maybe look over there." I tried progressing farther into the building to see if she would climb up after, but she didn't. Instead the screen went to black for a few seconds and then it teleported me outside, with no ladder against the building. I guess you have to follow the scripting down to a T.
Yeah I kind of felt it may have been an intentional thing. Ah well. I've been getting pretty used to it anyway, so it's not so bad.
Steam ID - VeldrinD | SS Post | Wishlist
the way the backpack works is easily one of my favorite things about this game
you have to be very, very creative. i could not do it without having already beaten the game, which in its progress turns you into a sleek murder machine. the great thing about this mode is it's not insta-death, you can still cop a bullet or get caught by a clicker - the enemies aren't gratuitously better - you just have to pay the price when you make mistakes. i love it. it is intensely satisfying... at least up to this stage.
Playing on easy basically makes it play like a riskier Uncharted game
Awesome
This usually bugs me too, but there's definitely more than a few environments in this game that break that mould.
Steam ID - VeldrinD | SS Post | Wishlist
I just don't buy it
spoilers on character deaths throughout the whole game
Sarah's not required to be a daughter, but she is required to be the same sex as Elli, because a major part of Joel's relationship with Elli is how she kind of reminds him of his dead daughter in a very instinctual, subconscious kind of way. Now if Elli had been an Eli, Sarah could've been replaced with a son and still died, but in that case we're just removing a complex female character from the game, so how does that do anything to help out feminism in games? Elli is not Yorda from Ico, but that NY Times critique treats them as basically the same thing - despite him saying how he was A) fascinated by Eli's characterization, and
This is a story about Joel AND Elli, and their relationship. Un-serious, over-simplification of its elements and then complaints based on those over-simplifications is not something that video games need to deal with in order to be Taken Seriously. Not that there's not good debates to be having, but this guy's not one of them. And it's especially hard not to eyeroll when it's coming from the NY Times, the folks with such a touch on the beating pulse of feminism that their game of thrones reviews consist of, "Women are obviously physically incapable of liking a fantasy show, except that there's some porn in there so I guess they watch it because of that."
"gosh look at all these waist-high walls. They'd be really use for cover in a--oh look a gunfight broke out
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Yeah, it was especially obvious early in the game I thought. My friend even exclaimed, "OH SHIT, CHEST HIGH WALLS!" in that first shooting scene.
But later on I didn't really notice it as much, it fit in with the environment much more naturally.
It actually does make for a pretty good watching experience. ...As long as you're not watching an asshole who jogs by conversations
there is one word the article really needed to address to justify the point, and in this word's absence the argument ultimately fails
it's 'protagonist.' it is a pretty basic word for a review of a narrative
must find more broken scissors
I had an overabundance of these!
I couldn't find binding to save my life
except maybe sugar I guess since it's only used in one recipe
And I couldn't get rid of any in my inventory because I didn't have the bindings to make shivs, but I had three shivs anyways, so even if I did have bindings, it wouldn't let me
Infinite Shivs
I don't know if it makes any difference but the animation seems to change just enough to make it the most satisfying thing
pimp my blade
little further in from that
It's definitely meant to be morally complex
MEGA ENDING SHPOILERS
It's also worth remembering who killed Sarah and broke Joel's soul in the first place - it wasn't cordyceps, it was a US soldier. Joel's had 20 years to stew on the idea of authority choosing to sacrifices innocents for the greater good. Killing Sarah didn't stop cordyceps, so why should killing Elli?
I really think it's a brilliant ending, as you're simultaneously tremendously attached to Elli and the idea of breaking her down for parts on the chance of a cure is just horrifying and impossible... And yet at the same time you can see how this may be the best possible choice. The fireflies position absolutely makes sense (and it's a great touch that when you bust into the surgery room and shoot the doctor about to murder an innocent anesthetized 14 year old girl, the nurse screams and calls YOU a monster.
this is a tale of modernity. there are no easy answers, of course: that joel has to lie - more to himself than to ellie - about this is significant. we can't know if ellie's sacrifice would have made a difference, that's not how science works. the indications are there, but there is no curing pill yet. all we need to know is that a decision was made and we can move on. we lie to move on. because we're selfish sometimes. because we do terrible things. that this girl will fix the world is a lie. joel's idea, that maybe if that first soldier hadn't shot his daughter, everything would be okay - that maybe simple empathy can solve all this, and we'll live, we'll keep living - is a lie too. that's how we cope. we lie.
Yeah, if you think about the phrases that get repeated over and over again at the ends of story arcs
Early Joel arguing with Tess: "We're shitty people, Joel" "No, we are survivors!"
Henry after leaving Joel to die argues that he did what he had to survive, and Joel would have done the same thing
Joel argues with Tommy, saying that he kept him alive, and Tommy argues that what they did wasn't worth it
David argues that he's no different from Joel and Elli, killing others in order to survive
And then Marlene at the hospital gives a similar justification herself
But you can tell that as Joel grows more and more attached to Elli he begins rejecting that selfish definition of survival, he cares more about Elli than his own life, and he tries to explain the idea to her in the very last scene, "I struggled for a long time with survivin'... No matter what, you keep finding something to fight for." Ironically he's valuing Elli's life over his own survival... Even as he prevents Elli from sacrificing her own survival for a greater good.
And at the end they're going back to Tommy's, the settlement that's about more than just survivin'.
rag x 1
[end inventory]
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126