Why didn't Marlene... (TLOU Spoilers)

In the end, instead of just telling Joel they were going to operate on Ellie's brain, effectively killing her, why not just lie and make something up? When Joel asked to see Ellie, Marlene could've just said she was recovering in another room and that he could see her in a little bit, while in the meantime they would actually be operating on her.

This is why you should never play video games for the story.

Because the plot said so. It's forced and contrived, I know, but as I said many times before, the plot in TLoU is not the best part of it. It's the characters that make it shine.

She didnt know Joel had developed such a bond with the girl. The joel she knew was a ruthless cold blooded murderer.

This.

Which he even demonstrated after the fact by murdering several Firefly soldiers.

@ S0lidSnake

@ IndianaPwns39

Thats for adults, she had no reason to believe that behavior would remain consistant with women and children aswell. Video games always forget the kids.

Are women not adults? Quick, someone hide this thread before Anita Sarkeesian sees it!

Anyway, the game suggests Joel was cold to pretty much anyone he came across. We see Joel being very hostile with anyone that crosses his path, age or gender were never a factor. In fact, he was very aggressive with Ellie in the beginning. He frequently pushed her away and fought with her, in order to keep his feelings in check. Even at the half way point of the game, he tries to pass Ellie off to his brother. The only reason Joel and Ellie's relationship got anywhere is thanks to Ellie's stubborn attitude.

There's no reason to believe Joel didn't demonstrate these same qualities in front of Marlene. Hell, he's completely against the idea and vocal about it until Tess convinces him the loot will be worth it.

Before Marlene told Joel what they were going to do with Ellie, Joel revealed how he felt.

Marlene: "You don't have to worry about her anymore. We'll take care of-"

Joel: "I worry. Just let me see her. Please."

Joel expressed concern for Ellie, which meant that if Marlene considered Joel a violent person, then she probably shouldn't have told him what they were going to do. Marlene knew how Joel would react, that's why Ethan was in the room with her. So, why not lie? Like Black_Knight said, it was just another contrived reason to have one final shootout.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the first line is? It's a lie.

Marlene did lie to Joel. She says that they'll take care of her and she's fine. However, Joel responds by wanting to see her. Do you honestly think that attitude would change if Marlene told him she's sleeping? No, Joel would still want to see her. What lie could Marlene have used that would have made Joel leave without wanting to see her again, right then and there?

So Marlene is honest with him. Perhaps it's because she's trying to appeal to his survivor side. The side we saw most of the game where it was killed or be killed. The side Marlene knows. Despite Joel's worry, maybe he'd understand that a potential cure was worth it, important.

I disagree Marlene knew Joel and that Joel wanted to see the kid didn't indicate anything but that he wanted to see her, look at most of your friends and i bet that they can sometimes do things out of character without having changed their overall personality.

Also people who knew each other through years rarely notice the small things

@ IndianaPwns39

They are minorities and video games suck at making female characters. Everybody knows that.

Anyway she knows Joel's reputation, many people do, but the game is so low on kids, therefore I maintain his reputation only applies to adults. Not to mention Ellie's first impression is that of a foul mouthed brat, she practically tried to kill Joel the 1st time they met, I actually found her annoying. I think its safe to give the game a free pass on that one. Had Ellie been a normal kid then it would be safe to assume Marlene would expect there to be a connection there, they were together for like 3 seasons right ?

@IndianaPwns39:I'm not sure why you think the first line was a lie, Marlene never told Joel that Ellie was fine. There was never any attempt to mask the truth. We've already established that Marlene was well aware of the relationship between Joel and Ellie, and yet she still told Joel what they were going to do with Ellie, even though Marlene considered Joel a violent person (hence Ethan's presence in the room).

Marlene only had to conceive a lie capable of keeping them separated temporarily, while the surgery was being performed. Last time Joel saw Ellie was when she almost drowned? Then tell him Ellie's in critical condition and that they're trying to treat her in surgery and that any complications would put her at risk. It's really just that simple.

No,we haven't.

@S0lidSnake: Yes we have, Joel expressed concern for Ellie in front of Marlene before she even revealed what would happen to Ellie. Did Marlene seem surprised at all when Joel became violent at the thought of Ellie dying? Why do you think Ethan was in the room with her, armed?

Marlene more than likely talked with Ellie, when she was resuscitated, about what happened between her and Joel, therefore learning of their relationship and predicting how Joel would react.

At that point she wanted to tell someone who had some sort of emotional connection to Ellie, so that she wouldn't feel so alone in her decision.

And she didn't expect him to be such an OP badass motherfucker.

This. Unless Marlene drugged Joel to knock him out then the operation would have been done to Ellie.

The first line is a lie. The phrase "we'll take care of her" often means to look after, secure, comfort, or, well, take care of. It rarely means "we're going to cut open her brain and experiment on her, leaving her dead".

Also, if Marlene told Joel she was in critical condition that would have made him more anxious. You could cover Ellie's death easier, but if Joel learned the truth (a highly likely scenario especially if the cure worked) you'd still get your shootout in the form of a revenge scenario. If the cure didn't work, there's a better argument to be had.

Also, Marlene was confident that a hundred Firefly soldiers were capable of stopping Joel.

That's better than any answer I can come up with. Of course, in hindsight it was a terrible and foolish mistake of her to make, but she didn't have any reason to believe Joel would react this way. Even after surprisingly seeing he was obviously upset, I still don't think there's more she could have done, other than having him killed on the spot, which would have been very extreme and uncharacteristic of her.

Well, in truth it is a game and like in a movie they have a script they have to run with it :)

But yep that answer pretty much sums it up, she knew Joel and if the developers didn´t screw up it wasn´t the first time Joel had shown a more caring side but he was still Joel the ruthless killer.

Excellent Conclusion !

Now lets go back to discussing real video games ! :p

This is why it's good to keep an open mind when gaming and try not to over analyze every plothole and just enjoy the game for what it is. It's not like we can go back and change the story. After all,it's a video game, not reality.

@ HipHopBeats

You can't go back in Reality and change stuff either, but you can in Heavy Rain ! :D, its narrative was miles better as a video game than The Last Of Us was.

@Lulu_Lulu: Funny you should mention Heavy Rain as the GOTYE is next on my radar. I've played a little of Beyond Two Souls and Heavy Rain looks way more intense. The Last Of Us is not a perfect game by far, but a solid way to end PS3's life cycle as far as exclusives go and definitely better than Bioshock Infinite, lol!

@ HipHopBeats

I wonder what took so long for Naughty Dog to finally make a damn good game.....

Are you crazy? Naughty Dog doesn't make anything else than great games.

I'm unfamiliar with the Ratchet and Clank or Crash games, but the Uncharted trilogy had a fuckton of issues.

They're still great, and critically acclaimed, games.

@ SirWander

To hell with critics, I judge a games quality by how many things I can find wrong with it. I do that for games I love and hate, and Uncharted did executed many things in a less than spectacular fashion which warrants taking a closer look at the game.

All games have issues but Uncharted is still a great game.

Lulu_Lulu,

A game can still be great and have faults. You shouldn't ignore the positives when judging things, it will only serve to give a narrow minded view of the product in question.

A closer look at what? How well the shooting and cover mechanics work? Because that's what the bulk of those games consists of, and they work splendidly well. The platforming is also solid. The puzzles are on the easy side, but they're not the focus of the game.

@ Jacanuk

True, but uncharted's issues are ctitically acclaimed and everyother game gets bashed for those issues.

Okay lets get into some details about Uncharted 2's issuess (I'm skipping uncharted 1 because it sucked, everybody knows that). Anyway uncharted 2: Puzzles were more like pace changers than a challenge since the big one (or was it 2 puzzles?) will have the solutions in the Journal, the other puzzles like getting over or across some randomn obsticle were pretty lazy, I mean the solution is obvious, you need a box or a plank or whatever but its place in areas the player has no reason to go looking for it, finding the item is literally the hardest part of the puzzles.

And now the platforming, Drakes Animations are a drastic improvement from the 1st game where jumping as always a gamble, but in Uncharted 2 I still find my self slipping and falling through no fault of my own, Nate would just smack straight into the wall like a cartoon and plummet to his painful death, theres this one area in the snower ruins where you seperate from Tenzin and have to navigate your way through a bunch of giant cogs, thats where the platforming was at its worst. And it has the a simular issue to the puzzles, you how can I get lost/stuck in a game thats so brutally linear, where do I hop to next.

The those things are not really important, Uncharted 2 is more shooter than puzzle platformer, so yeah, lets dissect that meat. The cover system does its job and nothing else, its really cool hanging on a ledge as cover and popping baddies with one hand but the oppertunity never comes up. The weapons suck, no really they do, theres like 3 different types of the same weapons that aren't different at all, and you'd think since Nate is a Genocidal monster he would have his own set of weapons but nope he's just gona "wing it", Theres also something weird about actually using the weapons, maybe its the PS3 controller. Oh and the stealth, they had some great ideas but it was incomplete as is always the case for any game that impliments stealth. It will always be not quite good enough. Ah yes the enemies, They take cover, thats just about all I noticed, I didn't see any strategising people talk so much about, once they get into cover they never move again unless you move to flank'em. And then there were those armored, shotgun weilding, bullet sponges, if you're gona have an enemy like that then give a weakness that doesn't involve explosives.

And theres a few stuff I'm forgetting, the melee was weird.

Oh and the companion AI sucks, good thing we don't have to baby sit them because that would be a major pain in the ass.

Uncharted 1 didn´t suck, it wasn´t as good as one but it was still a decent enough game.

But let me see

1: Puzzles always suck in any game because they are dumbed down to suit the mainstream gamer and also because most games today have the attention span of a 1year old playing "peakaboo" , and Uncharteds are no different and wasn´t really there to do anything but kinda slow it down a bit and let you have some relaxing gameplay.

2: Hmm, didn´t have those issues or at least for me it wasn't enough of a annoyance to register, but then again its a fair amount of time since i played it.

Uncharted is Tomb Raider with a male lead and less about Tombs. and i think you are overthinking the game, its there to have fun, a game like most action movies, short straight to the point and not a thing you should think to much about, just sit back and be blown away for duration and then walk away.

Thats what Uncharted and also Tomb Raider does and they are so far great at it.

@ Jacanuk

Uncharted 1 was horrible dude, Nates jumping was inconsistant, the enemies were brain dead and used overwheliming force try kill the player, the game dragged on forever so much padding in between cutscenes I forgot why Nate was here. It was very average, ofcourse this was early in the PS3's life so I'm sure even Road To Hell wouldve been critically acclaimed aswell.

I'm so sorry for participating in derailing this thread. forgive me TC :(

Alright let's discuss these issues:

The puzzles in the series were never meant to give a challenge in the game, especially when the answers are so easily found. It just a way to add variety to the game, and to give pause between all the hardcore murder Drake commits. Also, the first Uncharted is widely considered to be a good game.

I do agree the platforming was an improvement compared to the first, but the one in Drake's Fortune was serviceable and solid. Somethings it's not always clear what or where Drake can jump to, but it is still largely dependent on the players ability. If you're not paying attention to where the camera initially points you towards, you can make a misstep. A problem I have with the platforming is the jumping distance Drake has can be unreliable. Sometimes there's a gap you think is small enough to jump over, only to find out that's not where the game wants you to go, and it's one more odd death cry from Nolan North. Despite what faults it has, it works as intended and it's nice seeing all that neat level design.

Yep, it is a third person shooter above all else. There isn't a lot of variety in the types of weapons available in the game, but they all have their idiosyncrasies that help differentiate them from their counterparts. Even so, the weapons found in the second half are just improve versions of the weapons allowed to the player in the first half; the M4 is largely better than the AK. Drake carrying a large attache case filled with weapons would be interesting, but having him steal the weapons off the corpses of his vanquished foes is just more fun and economically frugal. I didn't have any problems with the shooting in the game. Maybe you should adjust the aim sensitivity, that may help. The enemy AI is just fine if you're playing it on difficulties higher than easy, they do more than just take cover. That isn't to say it's perfect, but it does provide ample challenge. The armored brutes aren't that hard, just shoot 'em in the face.

Oh yeah, the melee system isn't that well developed. It's supposed to be an option for killing enemies without wasting ammo, one that was added to reward players that take a bit of a risk when confronting enemies. But it's one I rarely used given the option, as neat as it was.

Why don't you check out the reviews for Lair (or Knack if you want something more recent) to find out how full of shit that statement is.

You are so wrong Lulu :) Uncharted 2 was....is one of the best action/adventure games out there and its so sad thats its a sony exclusive title.

And comparing it to Ride of Hell is just well a ride to hell insane :)

@ SirWander

Wow, maybe SNIPER was right, if all it takes for a game to be critically acclaimed is just for Devs to give you the solutions to the puzzles then maybe games and the people who play them really are "dumbing down".

and Tomb Raiders platforming was serviceble and solid, I never fell because Lara forgot to tie a shoelace, boring as it was it was solid because it was predictable and consistant. In Drakes Fortune fortune I died and had to repeat a small section because Nate for some reason forgot how to let go of a ledge and grab the ledge right underneath him. His jumping height and distance is never consistant and he had the worst case of butter fingers I've ever seen, good thing it wasn't a major part of the game. Thats what passes for serviceble and solid these days. I'm pretty sure even Naughty Dogs own previous games weren't that clumsy.

as for the weapon's if you wana see some real difference between 3 weapons of the same type then look know further than President Evil 5 (I'd actually rather you look at Gears of Wars weapons but its not multiplatform and cows maybe listening). Its got 4 pistols each with their own unique feature that distinguish it from the rest (one for headshots, one for piercing, one for power and one with burst capability), same applies to shot guns, sniper rifles, assualt refiles and Magnums. In Uncharted the difference amount to nothing more than damage and ammo capacity. Theres nothing more annoying than having four different assualt rifles whos only purpose is to render the one that you had before it inferior and useless.

You're right about Drake not having his own weapons though, he didn't need them.

When I adjust the difficulty the only change I notice is The Damage and health is no longer as generous. Gun fights were the same, they just took longer to resolve. As for the brutes, they wear helmets remember, you gotta shoot that off 1st then you'l have access to his face.

Oh and one last thing, Please don't tell SNIPER I agree with him..... He'l never let me hear the end of it.

@ Jacanuk

Exactly how many other Action Adventure games do you know ?

I bet if you can list 10 action adventure games I can find atleast two of them that are better than Uncharted.

Lulu_Lulu,

You're choosing one point and assuming that it takes only that aspect of a game for it to be given praise. The puzzles are an inconsequential part of the game, they're not what makes the game appealing to critics.

Yeah, Tomb Raider had good platforming. But so do the Uncharted games, if you actually follow the route the game wants you to go then it works just fine. It's not consistent because there are specific sections, or rather specific routes, that the developers wanted the player to follow. The uncertainty of whether or not Drake can make the jump, oddly enough was intentional. It was done to instill a sense of fallibility in the character. So yeah, for all intents and purposes it is serviceable. You seem to like making assertions about things you've never experienced firsthand.

That's because weapon customization in Resident Evil 5 is a focal point in the game. It's good that much is true, but that doesn't mean the weapons in the Uncharted games are bad because of their lack of customization, or arbitrary limitations and perks. The weapons in Uncharted differ in: accuracy, firing rate, reload speed, damage, and ammo capacity. In the end they're just an ends to a mean, and that end is shooting. That's something the Uncharted series does really well in.

Then you must not have been paying attention beyond that. Yeah you have to shoot off the helmet, that's exactly why you aim for their head.

Why should she have to lie? She had the entire Firefly army between Joel and Ellie at that point. Not that it made any difference given Joel's skills (but those are the gamer's) so in context it was a perfectly suitable plot point.

You could just as well ask:

-why didn't she didn't outright kill Joel after knocking him out? Or outcast him?

there's an audio log right before you find ellie in the operating room. marlene felt guilty about her own decision and wanted to tell somebody that understood what she was going through so she might be truly forgiven.

@ SirWander

My bann has finaly been lifted. :D

Anyway back to business: I think its weird that you can defend Nate's inconsistant platforming by saying the developers intentionaly designed it to be unpredictable especially if it make you repeat 14 seconds of platforming because of something the player can't do anything about.

My point about President Evil 5 is not about the weapon customizing, infact its not even customizing at all its just upgrading. My point was each weapon specialised in something and does not render any other weapon useless. Can't say the same about uncharted, the weapons in each are objectively better than the last, its redundant as all hell, introducing a new weapon should not render the one that came before it useless its fairly common trope in video games "all swords are the same". As for the brutes, the helmets were bullet sponges, it takes half a clip to remove them. As opposed to President Evil 5 where the helmets were completely impenetrable. President Evil's "its not working, try something else" tactic is far better than Uncharteds "keep shooting until it works" approach, my 1st encounter with these armoured baddies I thought the game was broken because they take forever to die. Same with that dude on the train. Theres nothing that indicates what you're doing is even working untill the baddie just keels over and dies and by then whats the point ?