For example, if Joel was willing to sacrifice his own life to save Ellie and the situation escalated where both of them didn't have time to talk things over, would Ellie kill those in her way that tried to take his life?
I've seen this take quite a few times. And although it may be true for some people, I actually think starting from her POV first would be even more damning against Abby's character. Why?
Fans often refer to Joel's past and Tommy's remark of "you gave me nightmares" as "evidence" of his violence. Yet that is information that Abby is not privy to and never was.
So as a hypothetical thought experiment, let's start from Abby's POV.
Abby encourages her father to sacrifice a child that we don't know. We have no idea who Ellie is yet. We have no idea what conversation took place between Jerry & Marlene or who Joel is.
Shortly after this, we find our father shot dead. We're shocked. We're grieving. We make it our mission to hunt the person who killed our father. During those 4+ years, we take out our anger on our prisoners. We torture them because we're grieving and it "helps" us release our emotions.
Eventually, we arrive at Jackson with the intent to torture people for information about our father's killer. Our friend, Owen suggests we turn around. We get angry and wander off on our own. When we're just about to be swarmed by infected, a random man saves us.
We find out that man is Joel, our father's killer. Him and his brother offer to help us and give us supplies. In a fit of rage, we ambush him and begin our prolonged torture session to make him suffer.
At some point, we find out why Joel shot our father. Our father tried to sacrifice someone else's child when he wouldn't sacrifice us. And Marlene threatened to kill him with one of our guards having him at gunpoint.
Is your mind changed because we started with Abby's POV? Or does she seem even more despicable because it's clear we have no knowledge of Joel's alleged "violent past"? Meaning we sadistically tortured the person who shot our father under the context of our side sacrificing a child, a child I nominated to be a the sacrificial lamb and did not care about?
I find that there are two typical main camps of interpretations (this is a simplification/generalization).
The first camp typically involves those who view Joel as more ethically compromised than most if not everyone else across the stories. Many would describe him as a thug or even a monster. Perhaps cited examples would be that Joel was a hunter, and claims that he "killed a lot of innocent people". Or Ellie's anger directed towards him.
The second camp consists of those who believe Joel isn't any more or less ethically compromised than anyone else i.e. the Fireflies, Abby, etc. Many would describe his actions as human. Cited examples may include Ellie's forgiveness or the people of Jackson looking up to him. And that Ellie's anger wasn't meant to be taken literally at face value.
Do you think they still intend to find a cure?
The status of the Fireflies here is usually pretty negative and if I were to "pick a side" it would be Joel every time. But I consider the actions of Abby so heinous, I would argue that Jerry and the Fireflies at least have the 'excuse' of an underlying greater cause even if out of desperation and not necessarily altruism.
Abby on the other hand did not give two walloping turds about the vaccine or revenge "for humanity". It was personal and her intent was to induce maximal suffering.
I think that's what grinds my gears the most. Playing through the original, I never felt this sense of personal disgust at anyone or the Fireflies. Because at least to me, the "ends justify the means" is something that I can see myself being guilty of.
Whereas a vendetta under the context of what happened to 'my' father would never propel me to then torture the ever living hell out of the person who shot my father. I can be petty, but I'm very much "tit-for-tat". If someone tortured someone I cared about, only then is revenge by torture an option I'd consider.
For me it was when their mother called out Jimmy's name while Chuck sat at her bedside. The feeling of sadness, envy & betrayal was palpable. A single word or name uttered a few times gave incredible insight into the mind of Chuck and his strained relationship with Jimmy.
Chuck's breakdown during Chicanery is an obvious, honorable mention.
Finally it was the line, "The truth is, you've never mattered all that much to me". I believe it was a lie. A lie that contained all the repressed, negative feelings Chuck has had since he was a child. A purpose to both hurt Jimmy and convince himself that he doesn't care for his brother at all. The trademark of the McGill brothers' pettiness. In doing so he severed the last connection he had and rapidly, mentally deteriorated. It felt too real watching the ending of Lantern. Like I had just watched an actual documentary of what s**cide looks like.
When Jerry tries to convince Marlene to "buy in" to what he's suggesting, Marlene asks him, "what if it was your daughter?". To which Jerry looks down, turns his head and sidesteps the question.
What do you think Jerry would have done in Joel's shoes if his daughter was rushed into a fatal procedure while they were both unconscious?
Personally, if the sequel wanted to tell some sort of revenge-based story with sympathetic villains I think it could've faired a lot better if it didn't want both extreme visceral hatred and then deliberate recalibration of perspective towards the antagonist.
If someone or Abby had simply shot Joel, my expectations as to how "they would write themselves out of this" wouldn't have been as high. Because the retaliation would feel somewhat fair rather than excessively brutal. Instead, they went with severe emotional disgust which in turn raises the bar of walking it backwards.
The writers gave Abby her 'moment'. Many fans argue that it wasn't cathartic but I would say she was allowed to reach the peak before the realization set in. She gets to achieve revenge, release emotion and then supposedly reflect.
Ellie and the players on the other hand are denied this while still being penalized with the consequences of having fully achieved revenge. We are denied the peak before the realization. We must accept that "it wouldn't have brought closure" without experiencing it for ourselves.
TL;DR: They wanted to maximize hatred of the villain yet also wanted 'us' to see her as a person. By doing so, they gave the villain their opportunity of revenge yet also wanted us to accept we should learn from their lesson rather than learning from the mistakes of our own.
I've played SOMA, RE7/8/9 and... watched others play Outlast I/II. Attempted Visage but couldn't get through it.
I really liked (and hated) the flickering lights in RE9, it's almost worse than having no light at all. I'm a novice when it comes to horror games so it was my first time experiencing that mechanic.
Despite being a newbie I think these horror games lose the scary factor quickly when we die too many times, or if we see "the scary thing" too many times. It seems to me the horror is the point before the reveal. The suspense in the obscurity of our senses, the dark and not being able to make out clear images.
It would be interesting to see a game laced with subtle, distorted figures and faces in the background, full of reflective surfaces that play with the "quantum mechanic" in games where an object/door can shift when the camera loses vision of it. I think this would keep players "on edge" in a near constant state of suspense.
Abby was completely helpless, strung up on a pole. Essentially giving Ellie the complete freedom to do as she wishes.
Yet instead of taking advantage of the situation, she wants to have some sort of "fair fight" or what I call a 'duel'. What do you think her motives were and what do you think the authors wanted us to feel?