Now that the session is over, what did Ganker think of the last of us?
How did it compare to the game?
Will you be picking up the pc port at the end of the month?
Now that the session is over, what did?
This phonograph "reads" a rock’s rough surface and transforms it into beautiful ambient music pic.twitter.com/PYDzYsWWf8
— Surreal Videos (@SurrealVideos) March 3, 2023
let it go
>what did Ganker think of the last of us?
Didn't watch it.
>How did it compare to the game?
Never played it.
>Will you be picking up the pc port at the end of the month?
Nope.
Zased
Very nice.
Similar to me, though I played a couple of hours for tlou1 before saying 'this plays like a shit RE4' and doing something else. Good intro sequence though.
TPBP.
Though I did play the original PS3 release and it was overrated as fuck. I wish Naughty Dog did Hennig's Uncharted 4 instead.
gay morons
It's somehow less cinematic than the actual game.
Happened way too fast while being way too slow, failed to elaborate on anything, ended in a anticlimax way (the shoot up scene was a joke). It just could deliver the same feelings the game did, just like said, it managed to be less cinematic than a fucking game somehow.
Oh and all the woke shit. EP3 was one of the most blatant case of off-topic, boring, unwanted filler I've ever seen on TV. Waste of resources that the series really needed to develop more.
And the girl's acting was atrocious too. She can't make a single facial expression, she can barely look to another characters. Her acting is almost uncanny.
I honestly think episode 3 is great. I mean, it wasn't needed and it was a waste of resources and time for the show, But that said it was a great, well told and produced little story that was actually heartwarming and heartbreaking, I just wish it happened in another show where it wouldn't feel like filler.
INB4 >gay
Grow up
Black Sails did the tragic homo shit way better.
Plus the guy that played Flint was way better an actor than Pedro whatever.
Well man one doesn't subtract from the other. You can have both and obviously one is bound to be better then the other, but I think both were pretty good.
I'm sorry anon but I expect my shoehorned in gayry to be of equal quality to butt-pirates and zombie homos just didnt meet the bar.
It's not shoehorned bill is a canon gay did you even play the game? ellie was astounded by the giant cock of one of the men in his gay porn mags
Yeah but in the game Bill was on his own. There wasn't any lingering scenes of him making out with Frank. Sure it was hinted at for his backstory, but it was just that, hints. So yeah I'd call it shoehorned.
Yeah but him and the other guy weren’t butt buddies just partners and no not “partners”
Anon when a gay man calls someone his "partner" the default is that they are in fact butt buddies unless proven otherwise
Does this sound like two people that used to be in love? I mean I know how harsh break ups can be but this is just brutal
You could probably go to some gay board on reddit and ask for people to share breakup letters and get dozens just like that
Yeah i suppose but the way it’s worded makes it sound as if he always hated Bill and that he only worked with him out of necessity
They even had a fight in the show about how sick Frank was of Bill's bullshit. The difference here is that Bill budged in the show while clearly in the game he refused to be anything other than an isolationist prepper weirdo.
Eeeh...its ambiguous. I think Bill had a homoboner for Frank. But IIRC they never explain why Frank left.
It was hinted at in the scenes with Miranda and Flint. The fact that their sex is so robotic and passionless, how they talk about the guy, there was buildup. And more importantly. Black Sails isn't an adaptation of anything. Its a prequel of Treasure Island, sure, but the only character that appears in that book for more than a scene is Silver, and Silver ends the series perfectly. Even his negress wife is mentioned in the novel. But Flint is a plot device in the story, everything about him beyond 'he was a pirate, he buried his treasure on an island and then he died' was fair game.
I call the Bill and Frank stuff shoehorned because it was never in the original beyond maybe a hint or two.
Brother ellie stole a gay ass magazine from his place. He was a fag
I’m not denying Bill was gay. Only that he was in a Relationship with Frank
blacksails was kinda of shoehorned, but I think it was quite naturally done in TLOU. If Frank was a woman I think most people would be praising how good it was.
how was the gay shit in black sails shoe horned when that’s why the entire story basically happens? it’s probably the only show where for once it’s not shoe horned and made perfect sense
kys dick sucker
It had no place in the series, it wasn't even canon. That episode could fit in any woke post apocalyptic show, be it with zombies or not, due to how random it is.
they could have just not killed bill and it would have worked fine
No because in the game his gay kills himself because Bill is an insufferable dick. He's just a sweet fag in the series, a republican pepper with a gadsden flag who always wanted to suck some cock. Pure subversion.
Them changing it so bill and frank don't have a falling out doesn't mean he can't stay alive and adapt his interations with joel and ellie faithfully
>Republican
He was obviously a Libertarian anon.
lmao libertarians died out years ago. They either converted to the church of democrats or found shelter with the Paul loving faction of the republicans.
Lol. Ok, sure anon. Whatever you say.
Anon, everyone worth a damn fled as soon as 'you should be able to sell heroin to kids' became an actual fucking talking point in the libertarian party.
So, there are no Libertarians, or there just aren't any good ones?
I assumed we were talking about the parties, in which case no, there are no Libertarians. There are plenty that still subscribe to libertarian ideals, but as a political force they just don't exist. They've been subsumed by big two.
The madmen still connected to the Libertarian Party aren't libertarian, they're woke anarchists .
So, there are libertarians them. And, lime I said, he was obviously a libertarian.
>'you should be able to sell heroin to kids' became an actual fucking talking point
That's legitimately stepping squarely into dumb-fuck territory, like worse than any hot-button topic that divides other people. I don't follow anything the Libertarian party does but yeah, I agree, that shouldn't even be entertained for any longer than it takes to immediately discard the idea.
Seriously, that's going to be the first question I ask any Libertarian.
Christ, I shouldn't even believe what you said is true but shit's so stupid everywhere I wouldn't be surprised.
Believe it anon, it was fucking hilarious. You can hear the boos start but they cut off before it really gets going.
I seriously think that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard coming out of Western society. Just straight up dumber than believing in magic.
I'm just going through the original video seeing how long the boos go.
Libertarians are all pedos. Every single time.
How it didn't have place in the series? Any good post apocaliptic scenario is going to have stories like that. I just think they didn't have to spend a entire episode on it. But as part of the overall story of the world of TLOU I think it was a neat addition.
I think that if the episode was about that woman with the baby that we see in the transition and how they ended up dead in that ditch people wouldn't be so upset about this episode. Seems like its just people being angry that they were gay.
>Seems like its just people being angry that they were gay.
yeah because gay shit is disgusting and people just pretend like its not so they can seem "high-minded" or "tolerant"
Because the show is short, it wasn't canon, it's gay shit and even if it was straight, no one cares about some couple of tertiary characters doing menial everyday shit and being happy while everyone else is dying on a zombie apocalypse.
Gay shit is gross. It's not heartwarming it's vomit-inducing. Nobody actually likes watching 2 grown-ass middle aged men getting it on. especially if they're ugly. People just pretend it's "heartwarming" and not disgusting because they don't want to be called bigots.
Why can't you retards seethe over actual problems. "Oh lawd two grandpas kissing! the Horror!"
it is an actual problem if the show goes out of it's way to gross me out in an episode that supposedly supposed to be "heartwarming." Gay shit is gross, not heartwarming.
>Gross me out
Definition of a you problem. Majority of viewers agree they liked or loved the episode. It is in fact considered to be the best episode of the series. Gay is normal now and doesn't prevent stories from being good. You are just bitter and out of touch
>Majority of viewers agree they liked or loved the episode.
They only say that because they have to.
Lol. No Anon, people like the episode because they enjoyed the story and characters as they were presented. That's it, there is no catch.
That's incorrect. They say it because they feel, or have been made to feel, that if they say otherwise it will make them a bad person.
I am adding a "lol" here to signify my amusement and thus detachment from this topic, thus illustrating that you can't hurt me using it. Lol.
>Gay is normal now
try existing anywhere outside of cosmopolitan western cities
gay is normal for less than 1% of the global population
That's fair, but obviously I am talking about western culture. It's normalized in the west, in fact it jas been for a while. Millennials are by majority pro gay and the current generation of children have been raised with the understanding that homosexuality is fine. Homophobia will literally die out in the west in our lifetime, and likely globally within a few generations as well.
Tolerating homosexuality isn't the same thing as wanting to see it though, and most people will still instinctively react negatively to seeing two people of the same sex being intimate with each other.
Ya, though you are likely to be surprised by how few people these days actually inherently dislike homosexuality. And again the point is that the trend will continue until society is entirely indifferent to homosexuality, which is the measure of true acceptance and normality
>the trend will continue until society is entirely indifferent to homosexuality
nah we're in a Weimar moment and we'll probably revert in a few decades again
>try existing anywhere outside of cosmopolitan western cities
wait, I'm communicating with someone who exists online.
>Definition of a you problem.
well for me it's a show problem.
> Gay is normal now
Homosexuality is inherently abnormal. I don't think you know what normal means.
>You are just bitter and out of touch
No, I'm just sick of pretending. I too was once one of the retards who would applaud gay relationships in media as "brave" or "groundbreaking" but it just made me weary over time. I want to watch media that makes me feel good inside, not media that wants me to applaud it for shoving gross shit in my face because it's socially progressive.
So is the episode good in a vacuume? Consider it on its own merits, pretend it came out in 2002 if you need to. It's still a good episode, and you literally just explained how you can't see it as one because of personal issues. That's what is called a bias, in your case a bitter one.
And normal is literally defined by majority opinion. It used to be abnormal for women to wear jeans and it used to be normal to smoke on plains. Unless you want to make a naturalist argument, gay is normal. And don't make a naturalist argument, those are retarded.
>Majority of viewers
You mean a bunch of gay critics that came out of nowhere? Meanwhile user score lmao
>watch a show alone and then post about it on a anonymous board
YOU'RE JUST PRETENDING TO LIKE SO PEOPLE WILL NOT CALL YOU A BIGGOT
What people? I come to Ganker specifically because I can give by opinions without being judged by people I know.
are you gay? Scientifically straight men have the same disgust response to gay shit as they do to a bowl of maggots.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19419899.2017.1328459
It's just that modern LGBT propaganda has brainwashed you into thinking there's something wrong with your instinctual disgust response so you purposefully pretend you aren't disgusted by it because you think you're high-minded and tolerant and don't want to be one of those evil bigots.
No, not gay. 11 years married in fact with a lovely wife.
>gather a bunch of bumfuck utah men and say they were not prejudiced.
sure.
This biological response isn't instinctual at all, its purely conditioned, like pavlov's dog. We, from a early age, are directly and indirectly told that homosexuality is wrong. We are all prejudiced, how much depends on our parents, exposure and the community and society we grow up in and it will stay with us forever, even while we try to be better people.
Do you think this study would have the same results in a society that had different views on homosexuality like the ancient romans or the greeks? Of course not.
Hopefully my children will be less prejudiced then me and their children even less.
The Greeks and Romans weren’t like modern day gays they still got married and had children they just had lovers on the side. People using the “but gay Greeks” argument is ignorant. Most gays nowadays are just fags nothing like how gays in the past were
Where did I say gay greeks? I literaly said "a society with different views on homossexuality" which includes homessuxual affairs outside your heterossexual wedding being normalized.
and you can rest assured that even in greece and any other ancient, medieval, modern and post-modern society there were "modern gays" that don't get married too, regardless of how acceptable it was to society or not.
Don’t be disingenuous, you know what you said and meant. But please do explain. And yes there were but they were outcasts who were ostracized by society because unless you were an artist, musician, poet, etc or provided some other specialized service you were considered a burden on society.
>It's not gay if you give your wife aids too.
Is that what you tell yourself?
Did aids exists in Ancient Greece and Rome?
>This biological response isn't instinctual at all, its purely conditioned
LMAO. Imagine actually believing that the reason why most men won't have sex with other men is because society told told them not to, and not because the idea of taking a dick in their mouth or ass makes them want to vomit.
> We, from a early age, are directly and indirectly told that homosexuality is wrong.
because most people have an innate disgust reaction to it. The vast majority of men would never have sex with another man or kiss another man, not because they were told it was wrong, but because it just grosses them out.
> We are all prejudiced, how much depends on our parents, exposure and the community and society we grow up in and it will stay with us forever, even while we try to be better people.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're freely admitting here that you have the same internal disgust you just believe that pretending that homosexual relationships aren't gross makes you a "better person" because you've been propagandized.
> Imagine actually believing that the reason why most men won't have sex with other men is because society told told them not to
Not what I said. I said that being disgusted by seeing gay people is a conditioned response. Your sexual orientation won't change because you don't mind seeing same sex people kiss. Are you gay for watching lesbian porn? learn to read.
>because most people have an innate disgust reaction to it. The vast majority of men would never have sex with another man or kiss another man, not because they were told it was wrong, but because it just grosses them out.
Most men won't have sex with other men simply because they're not gay. Even if the world was a cool place and gay people suffered no prejudice at all the vast majority of humans still wouldn't have gay sex BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GAY.
>And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're freely admitting here that you have the same internal disgust you just believe that pretending that homosexual relationships aren't gross makes you a "better person" because you've been propagandized.
I am freely admiting that society has conditoned me to think of homessexual relationships as gross instead of just another thing that happens. Learn to read
>Not what I said. I said that being disgusted by seeing gay people is a conditioned response.
which is ridiculously dumb and you have zero basis for this claim. It's just a coincidence I guess that people have looked down on gay relationships in basically every society in all of history.
> Are you gay for watching lesbian porn?
No it means that I, as a straight man, find females sexually attractive. Shocker.
>Most men won't have sex with other men simply because they're not gay.
And why are they not gay? Because the idea of doing it with another dude grosses them out. Would you have sex with another guy? If not then why not? Is it because society told you not to?
>I am freely admiting that society has conditoned me to think of homessexual relationships as gross instead of just another thing that happens. Learn to read
Yeah and LGBT propaganda has brainrotted you to the point where you think your natural instinctual disgust response is simply due to social conditioning rather than you not understanding that the social conditioning is what's convincing you to think that your instinctual disgust response is somehow wrong or makes you a bad person.
>And why are they not gay? Because the idea of doing it with another dude grosses them out. Would you have sex with another guy? If not then why not? Is it because society told you not to?
I sincerely don't know how to tell you in a clearer way that your're not gay because you're not gay. Its not because you're instinctively grossed out by it. its literally because you're not sexually attracted to men. Not being sexually attracted to men doesn't mean you are disgusted by men.
I would not have sex with another guy because I'm not attracted to men, as I'm not gay.
Would you have sex with other men if society told you to? No? of course not.
But lets put it in another way: There is nothing wrong with eating pork, right? You may like it or you may not. If you like pork you eat, if you don't then you just pass on it. But if you're muslim eating pork is a mortal sin that will bar you from heaven, so you're grossed out by it and seeing other people eat it will gross you out too.
Watching a man eat pork is different than watching a man get porked, dude
>moving the goalpost
Its a alegory my dude. Just to show you that what you find acceptable or not, gross or not, is largely defined by the society you're part of.
Eating bugs is gross for us, but there are whole societies in asia where is it was normal as eating meat.
You can attracted to men or not and that is just part of who you are and there is no changing that. But how do you feel about people who are attracted to men is conditioned.
In what meaningful way? Watching a man eat something you wouldn't eat vs watching a man fuck something you wouldn't fuck feel like the same approximate response. Grossed out by someone eating bugs because society has conditioned you to believe eating bugs is gross. Grossed out by someone eating ass because society has conditioned you to believe that asses are gross.
Its like how if you grew up in the woods alone and walked out one day to find a black person, you wouldn't suddenly go "oh no, the color of this person's skin genetically tells me they want to rob me or sell me crack".
Like the other anon said, if you're born straight you aren't disgusted by gay sex, merely uninterested. The value satement on it being super gross and uncomfortable to watch is because you believe it is 'bad' or 'unnatural'. But since good and bad are constructs and gayness appears naturally in nature, seems like that's not a valid response for an instinctual reaction.
>Grossed out by someone eating ass because society has conditioned you to believe that asses are gross.
or it could be the fact that literal shit comes out of there.
Might be news to you but you can actually clean your ass.
poop still comes out of there.
You know the account about how the first black man arrived to Japan? They tried to wash the black off of him would you say that they were conditioned to do that? So no it’s normal to think that something different is odd all the early humans that didn't also didn’t get have children because. Go. Back. To. Reddit.
Learn to read. It is obviously normal to see something you've never seen and be curious, or cautious or afraid.
They saw a black man were curious about a skin color they've never see, thats natural. But as the anon said they didn't see that black man and thought he would rob them, or do drugs, or eat watermelons or whatever.
They were afraid of him and thought him to be unnatural as did the natives who first saw Columbus. It’s normal to be suHispanicious and even hostile to things that are different or unusual. you’re examining this from the view point of modern society norms an not from a natural human perspective
I think you're confusing the feeling of 'what is this' and 'this is bad'.
You see something new and you're cautious because you don't know what it is. You don't see something new and say 'i can tell instantly that this is bad' unless you have some sort of prior learned experience that leads you to believe it is bad. That's why animals that have no natural predators or live around humans safely are less skittish of a new human than animals that haven't seen a human but do have predators. One has no reason to think it should be afraid, one has learned it doesn't need to be that afraid, and one has no idea whether the human will pet it or rip its head off.
If you lived your whole life in a room, go out to a forest one day and see a bear would you approach it? Or would you be afraid of it and run?
If I lived my whole life in a room where nothing ever tried to hurt me, I don't se why a large fluffy thing clomping around would scare me. I have no concept of animals or predators. If nothing ever tried to kill me before, why would I assume it would start now?
There's been plenty of studies like this done and the way organisms react to this scenario is usually dependend on the individual species.
then you obviously lack survival instincts which most people have it’s why most children are afraid of dogs they see this unknown creature that’s larger then them and don’t think “puppy” they think “oh shit this thing could kill me”
Humans have innate instinctive fear of things that can kill them. That's how evolution and natural selection works. Its how humans have learned to not get killed by things that could kill them despite never having personally experienced being killed by things before.
That’s my point if you see something unknown your brain defaults to this is bad
Bald faced lie. Animals are taught what is and isn't safe by their parents. Very few animals are born with the ability to tell the difference between a blackberry and a nightshade berry with no prior information. If you don't know what danger is, it is rather hard for your brain to tell you something is dangerous.
Like, granted, if the bear growled menacingly that would probably hit the lizard brain and throw up some red flags, but on its own a bear wandering through the woods is only really a red flag if you know what a large predator looks like
>assuming all animals are raised by parents.
Clearly your parents raised you to be stupid.
Pretty much anything that isn't a super-basic input output machine is.
So if you came to a cliff as a kid you’d just jump off? No fear or hesitation
I'm assuming as a child I would have an understanding of gravity. Thats a basic one that you learn quick.
Even as a kid I knew that falling was bad you don’t need people to explain that to you and you know that now stop being obtuse
>Animals are taught what is and isn't safe by their parents.
Are you underaged or something?
All animals have instinctual behaviors which are completely divorced from learned behaviors. Very few literally teach their offspring anything.
Most higher-order animals teach their young how to forage and care for them for at least a bit.
Right. But they didn't think he was evil. They just thought he was dirty because they only had experience with lighter skin.
Of course you would walk out of the woods and say "that man is black. weird". But you wouldn't think "man, why doesn't that guy have a loincloth and a bone through his nose".
They did they thought he was a demon/ animal
>its literally because you're not sexually attracted to men. Not being sexually attracted to men doesn't mean you are disgusted by men.
It usually means you're the disgusted by the idea of having sex with another man.
>I would not have sex with another guy because I'm not attracted to men, as I'm not gay.
So you wouldn't have sex with another guy but that's not because you're disgusted by the idea of having sex with them? If you weren't disgusted by the idea you'd probably feel indifferent about it rather than saying you wouldn't do it.
>Would you have sex with other men if society told you to? No? of course not.
correct, because I'm straight, and every straight man is grossed out by the idea of fucking another dude.
>But if you're muslim eating pork is a mortal sin that will bar you from heaven, so you're grossed out by it
They're not typically instinctually grossed out by it, they just have an ideological compulsion to not engage in it. If you don't tell them it's pork they'd probably like it. Also the fact that many cultures beyond garden gnomes and muslims in the middle east abhorred swine suggests there may be a more grounded reason as to the aversion to swine, likely for sanitary reasons, even if those reasons have become irrelevant due to modern sanitation standards.
>It usually means you're the disgusted by the idea of having sex with another man.
If you're not attracted to a particular woman does it mean you're disgusted by her? You're correlating not being sexually attracted to someone to being disgusted by them.
>So you wouldn't have sex with another guy but that's not because you're disgusted by the idea of having sex with them? If you weren't disgusted by the idea you'd probably feel indifferent about it rather than saying you wouldn't do it.
I wouldn't have sex with a man because I would find not pleasure in it. Disgust is a very strong feeling and you can not like something without being disgusted by it. I get hit on by men sometimes, but I just say I'm not interested and move on. I don't have any particular strong feelings about it aside from "Its not for me".
>because I'm straight, and every straight man is grossed out by the idea of fucking another dude.
Every straight man is just not sexually interested in having sex with another man. Again, disgust is a very strong emotion.
>If you don't tell them it's pork they'd probably like it
If they don't tell you its a men on the other side of the gloryhole you'll probably enjoy the blowjob too, whats your point?
>Do you think this study would have the same results in a society that had different views on homosexuality like the ancient romans or the greeks? Of course not.
Yes it would. You think the ancient greeks were cool with gay marriage or something? There was pederasty and views on that varied. But outside of that, relationships between two men were very strictly frowned upon.
Never said gay marriage.
But their societal view on homosexuality was different from ours.
That is still a different societal view of homosexuality. Fucking your slaves is still gay. Different doesn't mean 100% accepting. but you can be sure that a roman man would think way less of seeing two men together then our modern society would. And yes, the gay romans/greeks is a myth being pushed.
Just before you people put words in my mouth again. I didn't say greeks and romans were all gays in open gay marriages and that all of their society happily enjoyed their open air orgies. I said they viewed homessexuality in a different way we do and therefore would have a different reaction to it had they taken the same test.
>But their societal view on homosexuality was different from ours.
not very. Lesbian relationships were strictly frowned upon They had specific weird thing involving an adult male relationship with a young boy as a coming of age ritual/ mentorship that was sometimes sexual but not always, but the young boy would then likely go on to marry a woman and start a family. Homosexual relations between two grown-ass men were strictly frowned upon as well even back then and viewed as an abomination.
Ancient Romans saw homos as inferiors and those of fucked them did it for domination. In fact you could only fuck one (in a dominant role) that was either a slave, a prostitute or not a Roman citizen, otherwise you'd fall for "infamia" and lose all your political rights and not be considered a Roman citizen anymore. And of course, catholic Rome banned anything related to homos.
This shit about Romans being openly gays is pure garbage invented recently, with the only basis on Nero, the emperor who had a castrated servant, who also was forced wear women's clothes. There are some sources that claim he married that man after murdering his wife, which also happened around the same time he went batshit and burned Rome.
>Romans weren't gay bro. They just kept male sex slaves. But, they said no homo as they were wiping the turds off their dicks, so it's all good.
sexual identity isn't some rigid black and white bullshit
why do you think identity politics are fucking retarded garbage internalized by the same retards who believe in astrology and read tarot cards
Buck broken.
Are lesbians kissing and fucking also gross or are you just grossed out by homossexual men and not homossexual women?
I get it that seeing two people the opposite sex you're attracted to might feel weird as you'll lack a certain connection to the scene as you can't either lust for the woman or desire to be the man, but you can learn to appreciate good writing and a good scene without it.
If you find it gross because your religion said so please just leave Ganker because you don't belong here.
>Are lesbians kissing and fucking
depends on the age and how hot they are. girl+girl sex doesn't gross me out but full-on lesbian relationships just seem unnatural and weird and I don't wanna see that on TV either.
> or are you just grossed out by homossexual men and not homossexual women?
Much more gross out by homosexual men, but I still think lesbian relationships are weird and unnatural. And I imagine it's probably the reverse for straight females.
>If you find it gross because your religion said so please just leave Ganker because you don't belong here.
no I find it gross because of my natural instincts https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19419899.2017.1328459 It's an instinctual response, not an ideologically motivated one. And it's the same for most straight men.
>but you can learn to appreciate good writing and a good scene without it.
Trying to make a heartwarming romance story and then making it about two gross middle aged dudes is bad writing. This is what I'm talking about you trying to seem "high-minded" TloU has never had good writing. At best it's a mediocre ripoff of The Walking Dead and The Road.
To whom am I trying to seem high minded my dude? A bunch of pixels on my screen? You don't know me and I don't know you and we will never meet. I gain no benefits in not telling you what I really think or lying to myself in order to look better.
Also
>depends on the age and how hot they are. girl+girl sex doesn't gross me out but full-on lesbian relationships just seem unnatural and weird
So its not natural instincts at all, literally conditioned.
>NTA
It’s not conditioned, before I even knew what homosexuality was my first thought when I saw two men living together wasn’t “oh they're married or in a relationship” it was “oh they’re friends”. My parents had to explain it and even then I thought it was weird, I was five btw
If you were five you had already been watching tv shows, movies, listening to stories that only featured heterossexual relationships and most likely had only been around family members that were also in heterossexual relationships.
If you saw a adult man and adult woman together I'm sure your first thought was "they're a couple" and not "they're friends".
Thats where you’re wrong again I never assumed anyone was a couple as a kid but nice try. And yes I did hear those stories mainly because straight couples have a happily ever after with a nice life of growing old together with kids and grandkids and gays don’t
If you never did assume anyone was a couple why would it be special that you also wouldn't assume two men were a couple? If no one was a couple in your eyes then there was nothing to find weird.
It was weird after finding out not before, and that’s because two men or two women being together isn’t natural. I’m fine with it and support they’re choice and rights but that doesn’t mean it’s not unnatural
why is it unnatural?
Because they can't breed?
There is more to human relationships than breeding.
I decided not to have kids and my wife agrees, are we also unnatural?
>I decided not to have kids and my wife agrees, are we also unnatural?
yes
I'm really sorry that your whole self worth is centerd on something so basal. I hope you're never somehow rendered infertile
>infertile
>literally equating your disinterest in having children to a medical condition
way to completely own yourself
If your whole self-worth is centered around your ability to have children then if you're not able to then you are worth nothing.
Go ask at festility clinics how people who want to have kids but can't feel.
Literally never said anything like that. Your decision to not have kids in a (I assume) health, stable relationship with the opposite sex is unnatural. You keep attacking me as if I hate people who are infertile and yet those same people would kill to be in your position.
> why is it unnatural? Because they can't breed?
Yes the point of existence on this planet outside existential or philosophical ideas it to spread your genetics anyone that actually choices or has some biological block telling them not to is going against nature.
> There is more to human relationships than breeding.
I decided not to have kids and my wife agrees, are we also unnatural
Yes, yes you are
Can I one not be fulfilled by those existential and philosopic ideas alone? Isn't that what separates us from beasts?
There is nothing blocking me. But I see no point in putting a child into a crowded and ever worsening world. What awaits this child 30 years from now? I rather not put another human being in this world if all they have to look forward to is economic, societal and environmental collapse
What separates us from beast is our thumbs, upward gate, and higher learning capability that has nothing to do with philosophy as that came millennial later. Also if you think the world is so bad that bringing new life into it is cruel maybe you should take your own.
There are people I love and things I enjoy in it. I don't want to die, but if given the choice I damn sure wouldn't have wanted to be born in this day.
Then you sir are a coward plain and simple, this world for all of its faults is glorious and the fact you are so bitter that you would wish to never experience it is a travesty.
What separates us from beasts is higher-order thought, dingdong. We moved beyond base instincts and started planning and innovating even if things were acceptable enough. We can think about things, and think about our thoughts on those things, and think of things that don't exist, and in doing so change the world.
Also, again, arguing that humans are just a really good type of beast ignores the fact that homosexuality is not a purely human behavior.
We do still do thing based on our baser instincts tell me your daily routine and I can tell you how they fit into you base instincts. Also homosexuality in animals is unnatural we only see it in either zoo or extremely isolated cases in the wild the former because they are in and unnatural environment that shapes their behavior and the latter mental abnormality
it was weird after finding out because you were conditoned to think only hetero relationships were normal.
Naturalism is a shit argument against homosexuality because we have long since abandoned any sense of naturalism as a virtue. Anything that is natural that we actually condone and support we only do so because it is backed by science. Everything else that humanity considered natural for 99% of its existence has been unceremoniously abandoned because it no longer serves any purpose or advantage. Homophobia, which I agree is definitely natural, is part of that
Eating, drinking, sleeping, reproducing? Those are still natural dude
No one is denying that, but you literally aren't even making an argument
Yes I am these are all the basic needs and they are still considered to be natural by society even you agreed, so naturalism still is very much important
Basic survival needs isn't what he is talking about.
You can't survive without eating, drinking or breathing.
Sexual satisfaction is still a pretty important need but you don't actually MUST breed so your race don't go extinct anymore. You can just enjoy recreational sex. Condemning people for engaging in sexual acts that will not result in pregnancy is just stupid today.
...for what is actually usefull and beneficial for humanity yes. The literal necessity of things like eating obviously fit into that catagory, that was never put up to contention. The argument is that anything that isn't in that category is not considered necessary, is often detrimental and is often removed from human society as we continue to develop.
There are natural aspects of our lives that are strictly considered to be a negative and thus inetionally removed from human society. Our wisdom teeth are natural, and actually did serve an important natural purpose. In modern human society however they are useless and detrimental and so are removed. Homophobia is the same prospect. It no longer serves any advantage and so is steadily being eradicated from human society
>In modern human society however they are useless and detrimental and so are removed
There's no helping it, this anon is too far gone
Are wisdom teeth a bad example?
Considering most people only get their wisdom teeth removed if a dentist identifies they're likely to cause a problem/are causing problems, yeah it is a bad example. I still have all my wisdom teeth.
Ah that's fair, I used it because it's a very commonly understood example. I didn't trust Anons with a more explicit example like vaccines and GMOs
No our wisdom teeth became unnatural through natural obsolescence not social means just like our tailbones or appendix they stopped being useful because we reached a way to bypass their purpose. Homosexual will only be natural if we find a safe, noninvasive, and efficient way to reproduce without without natural copulation.
>inb4 artificial insemination
That still requires men to go to a place and beat it into a cup and then have there cum transfer to a lab to be injected into an egg by a doctor which does not sound efficient whatsoever
I never said why they became detrimental, but nevermind it's a bad example anyway.
And we're already at the point we're we don't need heterosexuality, we've actually been here for a while. We don't even need all heterosexual to reproduce anymore. This gradual curb away from hetorsexiality as a necessity has in fact been the key driving influence behind the normalization of homosexuality.
No you do as I said artificial insemination is neither efficient or easy as simply having sex, that just an argument used by the homosexuals to normalize their lifestyle
Anon we don't even need artifical insemination. The raw survival rate from increasingly better medical technology means that people need to have less kids in order to sustain and grow the population.
I see where my argument got retarded though. Yes of course we do *need* hetorsexuality, take it as you will but I didn't mean to argue otherwise. My point is that we no longer need everyone to be heterosexual, and we don't need every heterosexual to be having kids. As such there is no ethical or practical argument against homosexuality.
Then that mean homosexual acceptance is just a fad created due to the fact that necessity no longer applies if that were to change like say in the event that most of humanity is wiped out in an apocalypse that would mean people would once again look at gays as burdens and outcasts like Bill.
I would call it an eventuality rather than a fad. It's the expected outcome, but yes you are likely correct in your prediction. That of course is not an argument against homosexuality today, which again, is completely fine.
thus proving that homosexuality is neither good or bad, but rather a thing seen as more valuable to society at some times than at others. I feel like there's a word for that...
It's weird because this isn't the first time I've seen a homophobe self admit to homosexuality being amoral when given the chance to explain their own reasoning
Bi, though I don't base my assertion on my own personal experiences.
Okay so you’re gay got it
Don't be disingenuous, I nutted in my gf twice today.
That's fair I suppose. Do you think that gays are in anyway a problem due to being unnatural?
Have you ever fucked a man?
I’m not a homophobe, I don’t hate gays I just think they’re unnatural
And since you don't hate them, you just ignore shit with them in it and carry on with your life without opining loudly about how you don't like it and would rather not see it?
I do I don’t admit this shit publicly because woke tards would ruin my life if I did which is kind of pathetic that an ideology is so pathetic that people need to use intimidation and sabotage in order to defend it from criticism
Like the 70 year intimidation and sabotage campaign against communism by america?
Or all the intimidation and sabotage campaigns religion has under its belt?
Almost like the best way to support your argument is for the majority to make it clear that you won't be having one.
>i support reproachable and outright wrong actions when they're done on my side.
Love it, just love it, so next time please tell me how you're sitting on the high fence of morality, and "it's a good thing", etc.
How about denouncing crap including when they are done by people you like...what? that's asking too much for current year.
fuck off, you're just a bully who justifies being a bully because someone bullied you at some point in time.
Thank you for outing yourself as an Atheist Commie gay now go back to. Reddit, where you can tell all of you’re friends how you owned those heckin chuds on Ganker
You're gay, anon. You're just not very good at it.
Then why do those tits make my weiner hard?
Well let’s say that most of humanity dies out tomorrow and all that left are enough people to just barely continue but half of them are gay and refuse to have children or sleep with the opposite sex, meaning they are dooming and entire species just so they can abide by their lifestyle and honestly I don’t know about you but that’s sounds kind of selfish
Colossal what if statements like that are inherently bad arguments Anon. What if super intelligent, super gay aliens come down tomorrow and tell us that they are eradicating our species because of our homophbia!
Oh and also you really just can't assume that
1. Half the population will ever be gay and 2. They will chose to let humanity die rather than just stomach it and reproduce in your impossibly contrived scenario
Yes Anon, I have pitched and caught with men and romantically dated both sexes. I promise you I'm on both teams
I actually wish I could pretend to understand that absolute mess you call a comment.
Anyway you didn't answer the question, is it bad that gays are being normalized?
Okay then you’re gay there’s no other way around just because you fuck your beard and use societal conditioning as an excuse doesn’t change that honestly man it’s not healthy to lie to yourself
But would you let the homo couples raise the babies they made? Would the gays who decided to do something revolting to save the human race be treated as saviors or scorned because they didn't immediately start doing something they actively hated?
Flip it on its head, since we're talking crazy hypotheticals. A genovirus escapes a lab and kills most of humanity but modifies our reproductive system so that only homosexual sex would create offspring. Would it be selfish for the straight people to not want their bussy pounded to save humanity?
But we don't need the babies, therefore we don't need everyone on the hetero train. We have reached a point in our cultural development where we don't need everyone constantly pumping out babies just to get shit done and break even. Just like how we've reached a point where we don't really need wisdom teeth or appendices. When you don't need something anymore, it becomes less important that you maintain it.
>But we don't need the babies
yes we do.
He's saying that we don't need the amount of babies that would occur from every person being heterosexual and reproducing. In fact if that scenario were to happen that would be disastrous.
We currently meet and exceed the quota for sustaining the population strictly from the select heterosexual who are choosing to reproduce out of desire rather than necessity. This quota will continue to decrease as time progresses, again circling round back to the point that gay people are fine because we meet the quota anyway
>Naturalism
Nah, it is actually true, too bad that you all are completely brainwashed from that sick disease that pollute every single thing touched.
you are just another puppet controlled by freaks... And then, you use homophobia believing to be in a position of power, but you are not, just what I said before.
Wait. So when you saw a gay couple you thought "they're just friends" but when you saw a straight couple you thought "they're just friends" and somehow that shows something?
Also, the other anon is right. When you grew up only seeing heterosexual relationships, or relationships where everyone was the same race, that was what was normal. Now people are growing up seeing openly gay couples existing in real life and seeing stories of race mixing and homos as just people and it doesn't feel weird.
Now, the relationship in TLoU was awkward, not because it was two guys, but because Bill was super fuckin awkward. If you thought it was gross or unnatural, that was a learned response and not some innate biological thing.
>If you thought it was gross or unnatural, that was a learned response and not some innate biological thing.
Why most human societies reject gays if it's just a learned thing? Even indigenous populations consider being gay wrong and something that deserves punishment.
Common naturalist trends. Historical societies devoid on the scientific progress we have today would make superstitious assumptions and presumptions that eventually would be codified as law. Basically, it's only to be expected that the creation of life would be considered sacred to most societies before ours, which would put homosexuality in a vulnerable spot.
If you want to disagree then why don't you explain why the trend occurred.
>Common naturalist trends.
Aka, biological.
Correct. The simple biological necessity of reproduction was the common trend. It was only natural for it to be revered and by extend for homosexuality to be condemned.
That said, "it's natural" is merely a statement and does not inherently mean good or moral. There's an argument to be made that homosexuality is unnatural, but argument does that make against it?
By that logic murder isn’t bad because there are so many people now that one loss doesn’t matter and anyone killed can just be replaced
Killing each other is precisely one of those "natural things" that we can make do without.
For the whole of human history it was "only natural" to make war.
Killing is natural as is war it’s also necessary to weed out the weak
Haha what. No Anon, that is not what the logic implies. It also has nothing to do with the topic
Something that is natural or unnatural in the past changes based on societal norms and thinking yeah it does. Which means if society said murder was okay it would become okay
I still fail to see how that relates to the topic.
No, you’re just not understanding. It’s fine I mean it’s not that hard but you know
What is it that you think I don't understand?
Stop deflecting and answer the question
Anon I genuinely don't get what you are asking lol. I'm making the statement that "natural" is just terminology and not indicative of right and wrong. That's it.
Just answer the question
You literally have not asked a question.
I literally did
Anon both of these posts were made by me
I don’t care what is it you don’t understand?
How the (incorrect) logical assumption about murder relates in any way to the topic.
Because if society can dictate what is and is not normal that mean for example that if the population became to high to the point there wasn’t enough food the most certainly euthanasia and killing would most certainly be seen as normal or at the very least not so bad
Again this doesn't relate to my point on homosexuality. However there have indeed been periods of time were societies, including modern ones, deemed murder acceptable. That's not really up for debate.
Just because society says being gay is normal doesn’t me it’s true just like how they can say murder is okay that doesn’t mean it’s true there, now tell me is it really that hard to understand?
Anon I'm pretty sure society is the only thing that can determine if something is normal, and if society is literally saying that something is normal then is by objective definition to be considered normal. Homosexuality is being normalized by society, this isn't inherently stating that homosexuality is good or bad. Personally I do think it is good that it is being normalized, but that is due the consequences (read as: advantages and benefits) we will see from that normalization.
Is that really what you think? So if society said tomorrow that eating wasn’t necessary you’d it was normal? Dude the only people that genuinely go by this philosophy have zero independent thought capability they just move along with the crowd just like you do and while society can agree with nature ie homosexuality being unnatural. It can also make retarded decision like being fat is okay or cutting your dick off is normal so there you have it
You're just on a tangent at this point
Why don't you just start again from here;
Society is normalizing homosexuality. That is the factual statement. Is this a bad thing?
Just because you want to pretend to not understand doesn’t make it a tangent and it not normalizing it’s tolerance as in if gays were ever to become an inconvenience then nomo homo
If you were raised in a world where everyone wore a hat that represented their preferred genitalia, that would just be perfectly normal and it would be weird if anyone complained. If you grew up in a world where rape and murder were just a daily business, you wouldn't think anything about them.
The only reason you would think they were strange would be if there was some sort of precedent that built an expectation for something else to be commonplace.
Well ya, I'm not sure how or when I denied that. Of course normalcy is defined by society and its trends, which are subject to change over time. Historically these trends were much more influenced by natural phenomenon, which I think is important to note because it's much less so the case today.
I've been arguing that the normalization of homosexuality is one such trend, and that it was only previously considered abnormal (and typically immoral) because of previous trends, ones that were far more natural in origin.
This bro doesn't know that back in the day justified murder was all over the place and many cultures see or saw revenge killings as reasonable.
Think, dude. In a time when everyone needed to be pumping out kids to maintain the agrarian society because 4/5 of kids died before two and you were basically crippled by your 40s, it makes sense that people who didn't further the cause were seen as some kind of a burden and therefore 'bad'.
I mean, look at the modern day. Think pieces come out all the time about how 'the new generation' isn't having enough kids and that's terrible. It is an ingrained social expectation, and people who do not uphold it are villified.
Yeah it does because he assumed that I was conditioned to think being gay is wrong, which I wasn’t and I don’t my feelings toward gays came from my own thoughts and were only as influenced as much as it showed me a certain perspective that I could easily ignore.
Also race? Dude I grew up around people of different ethnic, cultural, and religious background I never looked at a mixed raced couple and said “that’s weird” but you can tell yourself that anyway.
Well that's curious. Because not too long ago, mixed race couples were seen as just as unnatural and wrong as gay couples. Almost like you were exposed to that kind of thing and so it just seemed mundane and neutral.
Mixed raced couples can have children gays can’t the reason they were shunned was petty racism. Gays on the other hand cannot have children thus making them unnatural. It’s not that hard
>inb4 sterile or old people
It’s about both functionalities and facility, it’s the same reason a man can’t be a woman or vice versa
What a stupid line in the sand. What will you do when medical tech gets good enough that we can just smash two gay dudes' genes together and make a child? Will bestiality become ok when we figure out how to splice enough genes to make the embryo viable?
On the subject of sterility, I don't hear people complaining about sterile people being gross and wrong. Why does same gender change the issue if nobody seems too put off by the mere lack of reproductive capability on its own?
No the fact that they need to rely on medical tech to reproduce is will alway make them unnatural same goes for beastiality plus aside from beings inherently wrong all beastiality is rape. And people don’t complain about sterile people because them not having kids isn’t a choice they would if they could an believe me they try very very hard. Gays on the other hand can have kids they just choose not to
what about when we artificially modify the genome so that a man can get pregnant by docking with another man and then he can pass along that docking birth canal to his offspring? Dogs with sentience that can fertilize a human egg without medical intervention?
My point is that 'can have babies and also are both male' is an arbitrary line to draw. If it still doesn't count after it becomes possible, that's not actually the sticking point.
>not too long ago, mixed race couples were seen as just as unnatural and wrong as gay couples
retard
How am I wrong? They equated it to bestiality and you'd get kicked out of your community for doing it.
I liked everything that the show added to what we knew in the game because it just made the things we loved richer. I really liked Bill and just seeing how he met Joel and Tess alone was really nice. I liked having both conclusions for Bill from both the game and the show, it was just really nice.
I think the last episode here adds a lot to the game in that following the giraffe scene they actually expand on Ellie's "it can't be for nothing line" and have her commit to Joel. I think her actually thanking him really gives him the drive to murder the people in the hospital. Maybe it would have been better if it wasn't spoonfed to the audience but I really felt it when she painted a future with Joel for him.
I wish they had done something better than put Ellie into surgery immediately. The advantage in the game was that the near-drowning gave them that week or two to do all the testing and such to determine how Ellie's immunity works. But in the show I feel like the scientific conclusion should have taken longer but done in a way the decision is still made without giving Joel a chance to say goodbye forcing his murder-spree.
I know it's a point of contention but I'm glad they had Marlene explain to Joel how the science was going to work, emulating the surgeon's recorder that you find in the game. The problem like I said was that in the show not enough time had passed to make it seem like the conclusion was plausible. Like they couldn't have managed to grow Ellie's cordyceps in fungal medium in such a short period of time.
Fuck the second season. That whole game's story needs to be scrapped.
>I wish they had done something better than put Ellie into surgery immediately
Pretty sure that's what happened in the game. They just hit joel in the head and moved him to the hospital. He wasn't in a coma for two weeks.
I know there's no way to keep someone in a coma during the apocalypse, but I like to think they spent some time and in the game it seems like they spend at least a day or something because they manage to create several audio logs and journal logs. Which don't get me wrong isn't long enough when you have the only immune specimen and you rush to do something with it.
I just wish they put in the effort in the show to insert some kind of at least two week window where they examine Ellie before they go straight to the conclusion they have to get into her skull out of respect of the fact that this is the barest minimum the science demands. I mean, the science demands longer but with two weeks you show that the Fireflies are still kinda incompetent by not waiting longer. It's just plainly irrational that anybody would immediately put Ellie under the knife. It feels sloppy. I feel like a two week window where Marlene hears their story makes her decision that much harder and I feel like they could sit Joel down and give him the same talk two-weeks later to exile him and have him still go berserk then. They could easily just drug Ellie too.
Don't get me wrong, they improved a LOT from the game, I just wish they did a bit more to really seal up all the plotholes.
>tfw they still managed to work in multiple scenes of having to lift someone up a ledge so Joel could get past an obstacle
It's a fucking TV show you don't even have loading screens.
in the druckmann-directed episode the cuck man forgot that the roof caving in to seal off an entrance was an explicitly game-design related decision in the museum sequence. the dude's so much of a hack he forgot what things he did from an intentionally directed place and what things were needed for the game to function
There was a really cheesy scene in Episode 1 where a car crashes in just the perfect spot to separate Tommy from Joel and Sarah
that wasn't even in the game, though. in the game, doesn't tommy stay behind to hold a door?
>I'm small enough to get through so I'll open the door from the other side
Completely pointless but also kind of charming. It's like if a comic book adaptation had people saying "Pow!" when they hit each other
Stop making the retarded brainlet zoomer questions. Absolute dogshit of a board, v is dead.
Its the only good video game adaptation
no, i'm suffering of gnomish fatige, also the posters below me DENOUNCE the TALMUD
I DENOUNCE THE TALMUD AND I HATE THE ANTICHRIST
How did they manage to make it more sjw than the game?
The first game wasn’t that SJW. Main character is a straight white man who wins at the end. Both MCs are white. All the minority characters die horrible deaths.
having black people doesnt make it SJW
Making white characters black doe’s though
>having black people doesnt make it SJW
yes it does you nword fword
Well, because they made the game retroactively SJW. In the first game Ellie wasnt gay, neither was Frank. That shit was added in the dlc and the sequel. The show represents the characters from the sequel, not from the first game.
You never played the original game then, Bill was always a flaming homo
Oh, finally. Now could you please shut the fuck up about it? Everyone is sick of hearing about your Walking Dead copypaste
thot status: patrolled
The Walking Dead is total shit, as is most zombie media.
You mean "all". All zombie movies are bad, they have never been good. Fucking death cult worship shit
>Oh noes! the world is ending! DRAMA!
fuck off with this shit. If you are making a zombie game right now, stop. If you are making a zombie movie or show, stop. Just stop, it's time to stop.
Left for Dead did it right. Zombie exist? I press trigger hahaha
This episode was pure garbage. The series was a 5/10 at best, an absolute snorefest that cut a bunch of shit from the game to focus on characters that didn't matter while dumbing down the lore even more.
Is it any different from the game's ending? Is it as anti-climactic as the game?
Yes, there's 0 build up, the hospital thing happens in like 5 minutes and the audio/video work is bad compared to the game. Characters also don't deliver their feelings well and they cut the small aftermath. They dropped the ball hard.
Just like the game, then. Got it.
Neil is going to shit himself to death when people side with Joel even harder than before.
Did you play the remake? He's already mad as fuck and tried to manipulate people into thinking he's the baddy bad through environmental storytelling. Compare these 2 scenes up to the point he gets to the elevator. He did the same in the series now, it feels like Joel is just doing a hitman job and fucking off.
?t=40169
?t=34857
Ifs the same
Good boy.
You're really scraping for anything here anon.
Really? Ignore the absolute state of the hospital and the fact surgeons look like some mexican cartel doctors in the original, pay attention at how exactly they build up the escape to the elevator and tell me it's the same feeling they were trying to convey.
?t=40226
?t=34902
>audio levels are retcons
Yes, so is the environment.
Joel could have beaten the surgeon to death with a fire extinguisher like Irreversible and he'd still be more of a good guy than the fireflies who gaslit a child into thinking she was going to save everyone with a couple tests but was actually going to kill her and slice up her brain for a hail mary that wouldn't even fix anything even if it worked.
And here we have the crux of the problem everything after the first game was Neil doing everything to subvert it the DLC, the sequel, the remake, the show. It’s all because Neil couldn’t make the original game into a miserable revenge story so he’s been spitefully rewriting and retaining everything that that made the first game good. He did make the game he wanted to eventually though it was TLOU2 and take that as you will
Then why does the show make it clear Joel is in the right?
What? If anything it completely glossed over the fact that the operation would likely get no results. The game was hard about this
>The game was hard about this
It absolutely was not. Never at any moment in the game is this said. I know what you're going to post in response too. You don't understand it.
>you don't understand
Enlighten me.
The doctor says it MIGHT work, he isn't sure.
In the game there is nothing like this at all.
There absolutely is, try replaying it
There is not. There is nothing at all. The doctor is referring to all case of infected people and why Ellie is different, not all immune people. Ellie is the first.
I'm referring to the exchange between the fireflies and Joel near the end.
You're not.
>LALaLA I CANT HEAR YOU
>still no source
As ever. You're referring to nothing.
Joel is incredulous at the fireflies lack of backing in the game. You have no source because you have no claim to begin with
>still no source
Yep, it's cope time.
You first buddy
Where?
Sort of
Try harder anon
At what? The show glossed over how much of a gamble the operation is and that's a fact
The show says its a gamble. The game doesn't, even though it obvious
The show just paints Joel as an overprotective madman where as the game makes it clear the fireflies are putting all their eggs in a basket that's equivalent to hopes and prayers
The show also does that, yet also has a doctor literally say he is unsure. Game doesn't have that same obvious dialogue
The operation is stupid to begin with. If you want to know what kind of antibodies she has in her system then you take a fucking blood sample, you don't need to perform a fucking lobotomy.
I guess it depends. If the body is actively fighting off the infection that would work. If the issue is that somehow her body has learned to coexist with the cordyceps, you might need to get some more in-depth biopsies and possibly look at the mechanism that allows her brain to not be taken over by the fungus.
There's a book called "the girl with all the gifts" and the basic premise of that book was that fungus infected humans could still conceive somehow, and that babies born from that were born with a brain that figured out how to exist in balance with the fungus so that they were sentient (at least as long as they couldn't smell humans, in which case they turned into zombies until the human was dead)
> If the issue is that somehow her body has learned to coexist with the cordyceps
That doesn't even make sense. Learn to coexist how? It's an infection. If it stopped that means Ellie's body produced the correct antibodies to be able to successfully stop it from proceeding farther. Moreover even if it did require a full-on biopsy, brain biopsies exist. We can do them without just straight-up cutting out a chunk of someone's brain so large it will kill them. I might forgive TloU if it was a campy zombie game that didn't take itself so seriously, but Druckmann who couldn't even be bothered to use google to see if what the fireflies are doing is remotely accurate to real medicine gets praised for great writing?
Of course it makes sense. Our bodies coexist with a bunch of weird colonies of microbes. Cordyceps isn't a virus, it is a parasite.
> it is a parasite
No it's an infection. the goal is to spread throughout the body. If it stopped spreading, that means there's antibodies preventing it from doing so. Also parasitic organisms usually harm the host.
>Our bodies coexist with a bunch of weird colonies of microbes
only ones that are non-pathogenic.Your body doesn't "coexist" with an infection. It either stops it or the infection harms you.
>Also parasitic organisms usually harm the host.
I think the definition of a parasite is that it gives nothing back in the relationship. It doesn't necessarily harm by default. Cordyceps is definitely a parasite; it is also an infection in that infections are invasions of the body by microorganisms and, parasites.
>I think the definition of a parasite is that it gives nothing back in the relationship
No you're thinking of symbiotes retard.
bro it colonizes the entire body with fungus which feeds on the host and physically hijacks the brain to spread itself.
Also, clearly it didn't stop spreading since, at least in the game, they want to cut her brain out to see how the cordyceps colonized her brain. It is entirely possible that ellie produces some mixture of hormones that stabilize the system or some shit. Or somehow she got infected with a mutant strain that doesn't totally take you over. Treating it like a straight bacterial/viral infection is stupid, because it is objectively a fungus.
> It is entirely possible that ellie produces some mixture of hormones that stabilize the system or some shit
you mean antibodies? Yeah. The point is you don't need to cut out a chunk of her brain so large it will kill her for that.
>because it is objectively a fungus.
no shit sherlock. And fungal infections are fought off with the same immune system that fights off other forms of infection.
Do you think antibodies are what control all of the bacteria in your body? Spoiler: There's a reason you're not constantly running a fever.
Beyond that, generally a fungal infection that takes hold on more than the surface level is remarkably hard for your body to fight off, because your body is designed to fight off single cells rather than self-sustaining multicellular cultures. If your body could just fight off anything bad that got into your body, why can humans get parasites in the first place? Wouldn't the body just kill them?
>Because he is
And because Neil is a hack that can’t comprehend that saving a teenage girl from being killed for a cure that will never come is a bad thing. He’s said multiple time that he thinks Joel was in the wrong
>He’s said multiple time that he thinks Joel was in the wrong
He has never said this.
>still in denial
ngmi
Having your protagonist get his head violently smashed in isn’t and obvious statement?
Im waiting anon. Multiple times, as you said.
Yeah I gave it to you. Can’t understand context from gameplay? It’s not hard
Concession accepted
It’s not that hard to see guys but here you go
its so fucking hilarious that he does the complete opposite of what he talks about in the first 10mins without understanding it
You watch the whole thing that fast? That pretty amazing anon I’m impressed. Honestly just tell me what you think about Joel so we can quit this passive aggressive horse shit ab get it over with
learn to read
Sorry about thought you were being sarcastic
You played yourself.
See you next thread
Now this is the part where you pussyfoot around ever sourcing your claims.
My sources? look the hospital level in the remake
>flashing lights, alarms blaring, everything is red.
Making it obvious that you are doing something that you shouldn’t in a similar fashion to how a store alarm goes off when someone breaks in. Or the fact that Ellie actually believed Joel which would mean that she went through zero character development in order to still be that naive
Oh look. Here is Neil not saying anything multiple times again
The problem is Bruce Straley vetoed most of Neil's retarded ideas and made a pretty good game. Which is why Neil solo is so off the fucking rails.
Neil is a cuck, but he sides with Joel too. Has said so in interviews, and both Abby and Ellie's arc in the sequel are about understanding why Joel did what he did.
I’m going to assume they still framed it as Joel dooming humanity right?
No, the actually have the doctor say he thinks it might work, not that he knows. He is less certain later. It loses the ambiguity of the game
Well they explained ellie's immunity in a way that would be obvious for the average thinker to figure out how to replicate it
Okay explain it how they did
get an infected woman to give birth
And that will provide a vaccine that will save the human race?
as long as there isn't another joel to care about the baby, yeah
What did Joel do?
have you not the game or show anon?
I’ve played the original game but no I haven’t watched the show, but it been awhile remind me what Joel did wrong exactly?
I'm not judging joel, but if there's nobody who cares enough about the baby to go on a rampage to stop it's brain from being dissected then they can make a cure from the brain of the next infected mother's child
Yeah killing kids for no reason is fucked up Joel did the right thing
get a woman who is infected immediately as she gives birth and cut the umbilical cord after 3.7 seconds. Not that easy.
As bill said the government are a bunch of fucking nazi's I'm sure they could work out the details over a couple of good old nazi experiments
>the government are a bunch of fucking nazi's
you homos have made that word utterly ridiculous
so what the government doesn't provide free healthcare? Doesn't pay for your gender studies degree?
when they round you up and send you to camps or kill you if they're already at capacity. and I'm not a gay btw
It wasn't exactly this, it was either getting infected during the exact child bird moment or cutting the umbilical cord with an infected knife.
Most likely Ellie absorbed small quantities of cordyceps and since she was so young her body just rolled with it.
so inject small quantities of cordyceps into newborns?
>and they cut the small aftermath
They cut the final exchange between Joel and Ellie? That was probably the best delivered bit of the game.
Kinda, Ellie basically doesn't talk, it's just Joel talking alone about her daughter while she does this face. Then it ends with the "swear to me now", which is terrible since Bella Ramsey can't act for shit.
>Ramsey identifies as non-binary
>plain as sin
Like pottery
she was good in Mask
I think it's good, but I think the game is better in every way
it was show about zombies without zombies
and unlike the game when they were around they barely felt like a threat, it was more like they were snakes or alligators than a bunch of walking dead who would gang up and fuck you over the slightest mistake, the smallest noise you made
and I get the point "haha zombie bad but people badder", but the world just felt way too peaceful, it's like 70% of the places had no infected at all
No different than the games. Even if the fireflies plans weren't retarded, didn't have a 0.001% chance of working even if that's how immunities worked, even if they had the ability to manufacture a cure and distribute it, it still wouldn't be worth it because you can just avoid the zombies by staying out of cities and basements.
That was the first thing I thought when I got to about the 4th episode. "Hey, there don't seem to be any zombies at all in the countryside. Why don't these retards just move innawoods?" I guess it's at least realistic though. People would absolutely try to cling to cities after a major event like that. To their great detriment.
I liked it except they killed off build, which made his expanded backstory in the context of the show irrevelant, I just feel like if they're gonna kill him off before he can be a part of joel and ellie's journey then that makes his inclusion in the adaption unnecessary. Also there was a real lack of infected in the show because the gameplay parts that featured mainly infected as the enemies were mostly skipped because they didn't have much narrative from the game to work with and they were too lazy to get creative and make something up. was hoping for an adaption of the tunnel section with all the bloaters and such to round out the number of episodes majorly featuring infected to 3 but no they just skipped it
>make a tv show so bad people buy the game to play it instead.
Pretty ingenious marketing
>session
Please fuck off.
why did they cast Mark Zuckerberg as Ellie?
>session
it’s season, you dumb esl
She's more known for the porn videos than the game itself
The point of a show is to better flesh things out yet all of the important stuff was rushed with no build up
Instead we got stuff that nobody cared about fleshed out
Are you ready for best girl Ganker?
>She's black
If she’s black that would be the third WMBF couple in the show. Joel, his brother, now the doctor. And the fourth frizzie hair mulatto female. Would be weird even the normies might notice.
>Runs away while your friends are being shot at
Speaking of. Abby's dad looked like a 70 year old man in the show. How old is she going to be
You know men can have babies well into their later years...right?
might actually watch Season 2 Episode 1
>"brb going to grab my golf club"
They rushed the hospital scene in like 10 minutes yet dedicated like 120 minutes to two dudes kissing on each other and that didn't even happen in the game.
You fuckers can't gashlight me into thinking this isn't pure political propaganda because it fucking is
Eh, the bill episode was a bit overdone, but bill was an interesting character and I think they wanted that to be a hope spot about how people can still thrive in the apocalypse, rather than just a weird survivalist that helps them through a maze for ten minutes.
>Closet homosexual watches his entire town get taken out
>Does nothing
>Builds a compound for himself (the only based thing he did)
>Traps another homo in a pit
>Bangs him and lets him stay
>Pit Homo gets aids, and they both an hero
Yeah, he really thrived. I was watching that episode waiting for something interesting at all to happen, and it just never did. An entire episode wasted on a contrived gay romance that meant absolutely nothing to the overall plot.
Lonely weirdo finds love in the apocalypse. Weirdo learns that other people have value and what it means to care about something other than himself and what he wants.
You can not like it, I don't actually give a shit about your opinion. But I'm pretty sure that story exists to show that the entire world isn't a giant trash fire (since from what we see in the first two episodes, the rest of the world is a fascist police state or a nightmare wasteland and everyone is miserable). Also that no matter how badass you are, life only really has meaning if you can share it with people that matter to you.
The video game is structured where the story is meant to be downtime from the fighitng
I haven't watched it because I don't watch netflix slop and never will, but a common complaint I keep seeing is the pacing. It kept basically the same story.
Well, that's not shocking. The pacing is all fucked up because it's like watching the cutscenes and nothing else.
The game is a solid 7.5/10. Very enjoyable with obvious flaws.
The show is a complete mess. Its either entire scenes copypasted from the game while feeling less impactful than in the game or diverts from the game in one way or another which ruins character, situations or full arcs.
4/10 forgettable shit show.
Wont get the pc port because shit company has made way too much money with this dead franchise already
As I predicted, the episodes they wasted on filler and not on the main story bit them in the ass with a rushed ending. It could've worked if they had more episodes and all those filler episodes could easily be glossed over but they didn't and they suffered for it. It's gonna be funny how they mess up Season 2 since they are splitting part 2 into 2 parts.
>a terrorist organization with a single barely running base left, a base that is destroyed by one (uno) old mexican with a grudge
>is somehow going to develop, manufacture and distribute a zombie cure
Imagine thinking the Fireflies had any fucking chance.
It was equally hopeless in the games but don't let TLOU2 cocksuckers realize that.
It was probably less hopeless in the game. In the game Joel was a real badass. Dude was a combat monster and so when the Fireflies give him a fight it makes them look better in comparison.
Meanwhile in the show they go out of their way to power down Joel. He even has dialogue saying he's old and past his prime. So when he stomps the Fireflies he makes them look just so fucking pathetic.
He's already past his prime in the game too (after the timeskip).
I know they paint Joel out to be the old man but I feel like he's a tested veteran with the talent to survive whereas the Fireflies consisted of people who were trained but I feel like owing to their trials are not exactly battle hardened like Joel is. Yes, they made it to Salt Lake, but they lost bodies he whole way. Marlene marveling at Joel surviving is a testament to Joel's ability because he survives while putting Ellie at absolute minimal exposure to encounters; it's also likely Joel didn't have to raid in order to resupply whereas the Fireflies had to risk taking from groups to make it.
I think the point is that Joel knows how to watch his corners and reload discipline and knows how to fire from cover. And the Fireflies probably don't have many members who have that whole skillset in one package. That's why it's so relevant that Tommy was a veteran of a relevant shooting war because you can presume Joel is equally as capable.
I went paintballing with my friend who served and he just kinda worked everyone. He said himself he wasn't really good but he was just taught how to do things and against people who didn't it was a cakewalk for him. Sure the Fireflies might know something but terrorists are cowards and they only score wins because they had numbers and used guerilla tactics, we saw how badly they lost against that smuggler who beat Tess and how badly FEDRA was fucking them up.
I ain't reading all that bro. I'm just saying that Joel was always an old man past his prime. The TV version may be less badass, but the concept is the same.
never underestimate a grudge laddie
but jokes aside, you would be correct
This is the main thrust of the 'cure never working' argument. Even if the fireflies somehow have the means, expertise, and manpower to create a cure from the single immune human they've ever encountered, how are they possibly going to distribute it in any meaningful way?
even better: if they manage to produce some quantities of it it will only go to their buddies, and they could weaponise the fungus against their enemies
>Will you be picking up the pc port at the end of the month?
PFFFTTTTAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Needed to show the zombies they encountered on the way. Marlene said she lost half her crew on the trip and asked Joel how he did it. Going by the show they just kept walking and got there.
The filler episodes in this show felt like the ones in the Walking Dead like Tara going to the women's only island
I watched it with my parents and they actually fell for the "doomed all of humanity" selfishness meme. The show didn't really do a good job of showing how incompetent the fireflies were.
How? The zombies aren't even a fucking problem
>The show didn't really do a good job of showing how incompetent the fireflies were.
It's a deliberate retcon which they already did in TLoU2.
I just marathoned the first 15 minutes of episode 9.Should I continue, am I enjoying it?
No. No you are not.
Yes. Yes you are.
Maybe. It's possible you are.
>paint Joel as a daughter rambling freak that is obsessed with Ellie
>Ellie basically cringes at his suicide story
>Fireflies are actually the good guys and Joel murders everyone
>acts like a daughter rambling freak again after murdering everyone
>Will you be picking up the pc port at the end of the month?
3070 minimum
fuck no
The show made me realize that I really don't know why I should care about Joel and Ellie's relationship
The game is forgiven since it's a game, but the show doesn't do it any justice
So it's over? Thank god. Hopefully you goldfish brained fools forget this when the Fallout TV show comes out. Hearing about you gay ass shit constantly has been insufferable.
Surprisingly, the game cut scenes were better acted, written and directed.
>"they THINK they can make a cure"
Joelbros, we won
It was shit. This proves that Hollywood is actually incompetent and incapable of adapting video games. They had a game that was practically already a tv show and they still managed to fuck it up so bad they ended up with a 5/10 show. Pretty much every change they made was for the worse, every new thing they added was cringeworthy.
Maybe when it's on sale.
Murray Bartlett is prime daddy, its a shame they paired him with Nick fatterman
Frank felt really rapey in this episode. I guess I have to accept gay relationships have different dynamics than hetero ones, but imagine if Bill was a woman and Frank starts ordering her to go take a shower and get in bed, etc. Even worse when you consider Bill probably had some kind of social disorder, so Frank is effectively abusing a disabled person.
Did I watch The Last of Gays? No, I didn't bother.
What was the big deal with this game? Why do journos praise this, but don’t care about RE4, both are very similar games.
Are you kidding? Re4 is one of the most acclaimed iconic games
Pedro is an ass Joel and Mahershala Ali would be have made a better Joel but bros had to cry because black but they made Joel a Mexican that can't act shit kinda funny if you ask me but overall the season is a 5/10
There’s already a black Joel his name is Lee Everett
LMAO when you put it like that you aint wrong but im talking about live action brother
At first the new prologue seemed like just some extra backstory and an excuse for an Ashley Johnson cameo. But the more I think about it, the more clever it seems and the more implications it has.
some key questions
>was Marlene the only person who knew the circumstances of Ellie’s birth and also learned of her immunity?
>how much did Marlene tell Ellie in Boston?
>does show-Ellie know anything about her mother? Game-Ellie at least has the “note from Anna” item.
>is this scene intended to be canon for the games?
If there’s anyone who’s still alive, knows what happened, and realises what it implies, then this opening might end up being very important. If there’s a chance that Ellie knows or could still find out then it’s critically important.
If she does know, I think that’d be inconsistent with her actions in Part 2, which implies they plan to change some things.
If she doesn’t (yet) know, I think there’s a chance it’s a hint at where Part 3 is going.
I’m probably overthinking it. But it’s been bugging me.
painfully mediocre-to-bad 90% of the time; surprisingly good when it does its own original stuff
episode 3 was legitimately good. the one with the gay kids (7?) was terrible.
It did a great job at highlighting just how childish the original writing/direction in the games is. Without the cartoonish masks made to imitate real faces, with real actors being filmed delivering the lines from the game, the whole thing feels corny and dumb. Druckmann's episode was terrible, as well.
Which one was drucks?
also, Ellie is just terrible. The decision for her to still be a quirky weird nerd does not work if she doesn't sell the performance perfectly. Bella's entire performance throughout the show feels like an out of touch old man directing an impersonation of Ellie from the games. it worked in the game due to the animation escapism and performance. They needed to go in a different direction with the character being played by Bella
It also doesn't help that Bella's unattractive and a charisma vacuum. You can be a snarky, sarcastic, obnoxious character that's likable if you have a cute mug to deliver it all with and a charming manner. Bella looks and acts like a homeless 20-something from Seattle.
Worse than later The Walking Dead seasons.
Druckmann might have one of the worst understanding of pacing I've ever seen.
>developing a gay couple that will soon be removed from the series?
>50 minutes is too short but I can do it
>ending the series? I think I can do it in 15 minutes, we can use filler for the rest
The only legitimately great thing to come out of the series was the Gay episode.
The rest was just a worse version of the game I really don't know why Druckman even bothered. Translating video game pacing into an actual show doesn't work.
I was glad they didn't pull punches with Marlene begging for her life, I sort of thought they'd give her some YAS QWEEN line where she tells Joel to go to hell or something
So they took an interactive movie and turned it into.... a series?
couldn't watch more than 5 episodes and had to skip gay episode because im not a gay and as a normal straight male i find that stuff absolutely disguising
yep they made one of the side characters gay and episode was full on gay porno
The gay episode was actually really good.
yep. straight man who has had sex with 50+ attractive females and a number of unattractive ones here. episode 3 was the only legitimately good thing to come from this garbage
is likely an incel retard
I don't understand the need to perform surgery thay would kill Ellie to get what they need, wouldn't a blood sample be adequate enough in a situation like this?
Game is far superior
I said and meant that greeks and roman had different views on homosexuality then we do. It is you that is assuming that I meant that they were all gay or 100% accepting of gay people or whatever you are thinking I meant.
Kinda funny how the show literally forgot about anything regarding the infected after just a couple episodes.
bella ramsey is a straight up uggo. why do people lie about her being attractive?
The Walking Dead but make it prestige. There's more than enough zombie shit already and the reddit puns don't do much to make it unique. 6/10
having the VAs appear in the show was a nice touch. you could hear the game ellie in ashley's voice as her mom. laura bailey is one of the nurses, watching her original character's dad get killed
One thing I really appreciated was that Druckmann brought his voice actors along. I mean that's loyalty, sharing the wealth, giving them work, and in some cases maybe Guild Membership.
Like fuck him for essentially all of Part 2 but I really have to respect that he brought them along for the show.
What about him giving zero credit to the Last of Us co-director, Bruce Straley?
Do you expect me to defend Druckmann for that? Because I won't.
Also, just state it next time instead of insinuating I dickride Druckmann because you sound like a fucking cunt.
bro i just got here
laura bailey should've been abby's mom. making the head surgeon a woman seems like something they would do anyway.
otherwise it should've been troy baker.
i thought it was mediocre up until the last 2 episodes. the last 2 episodes are as close to the game as you can get and they were the best episodes of the season by far.
i thought i read that they were going to do some twist that wasnt in the game in the final episode but i guess that was bullshit.
Literally the worst show i never watched. What the fuck were they thinking?
i got the remake and played until the highway bit just after the colorado university segment
i dropped it for like two weeks
the narrative is good and the performances are excellent but the gameplay is such a fucking slog it is unreal
im guessing the tv show is a 100% improvement on the game because it gets rid of the tedium
I haven't played the game or watched the show and I never will
I hate to break to you gay anons, but every single straight male person on this planet finds male on male gay sex revolting regardless of what they say or think about gays themselves. They can be the most tolerant and supportive of gays they can be but i guarantee to you that as soon as they see two dudes really swapping spit they are instinctively gonna have turn their head away in revulsion and may even have to vacate the premise if it's happening in person so they don't have to hear the sounds. If this reaction is not triggered then they are closet gays. It really is that simple.
Two attractive woman making out on the other hand is the hottest thing there is to a straight male.
This, I’ve never met a heterosexual man that didn’t find sex between two men gross it’s
Eh Anon, even you know that it's not an absolute perception AND that it's a perception derived from social conditioning. I'd wager the same amount of men who are actively disgusted by gay sex are also disgusted by a woman's entirely natural state of body hair. It's conditioning through and through
Are you gay anon?
Theyre both a shitty one dimensional extended movie full of gayry. So I guess the show compares pretty well.
overrated game
overrated show
It's a generic zombie shooter who's only appeal in the twist ending, who plays that after knowing it for ten years and recently watched?
The multiplayer was actually fun, you snuck around creating distractions until you could craft/scrounge up enough weapons for a big final firefight
pseudo intellectual gays justifying their love for homosexuality
it's not normal you dumb morons
Couldn’t finish the first episode. That shit drags for way too long.
Also lack of spores completely ruins the setting.
>THIS WHOLE FUCKING THDR
>https://youtube.com/shorts/05BSoLZQtZQ?feature=share
seek help
>spent an episode on fucking filler
>filler was longer than the finale
>Pedro's delivery of lines like "you'd just came after her" and the general rushed feeling of the finale
They fucked up.
100%
I cringed at the "you'd just came after her" in the show. It was so monotone and a boring delivery.
The game you could tell it's delivered with utter selfishness and hate, which was a got tier delivery.
the gay episode felt longer than the finale. it was so rushed.
and pedro botched "you don't know what loss is" too. that entire scene was jank.
The gay episode was 75 minutes vs the finale's 43 minutes, and was the longest episode of the season except for the premiere.
Tlou 1 without the dlc, was a pretty good standalone movie game with a good story, but after that Druckmann showed his true ~~*power level*~~ and garden gnomed the fuck out of that ip to the point I dont even want to hear about or play tlou ever again.
Tlou2, tlou1 dlc+remaster+remake and tlou series shat pretty hard on the original ps3 game and left me with a bitter after taste
DLC and TLOU 2 too much woman influance in it and it shows. Left Behind adapts material used in the prequel comic American Dreams which was written by a dyke comic artist. TLOU2 was heavily rewritten by Halley Gross, a reject HBO screenwriter who worked on the worst season of Westworld.
Ironically i dont think Drunkmann is bad at writing or directing games, TLOU the base game holds up well on it's own. The problem is that they keep hiring whores to write their games for some reason.
Except for the cringe episode 3, everything else was just sped up and with less content than the actual game. If you have seen the cutscenes on youtube or played the game, you already have seen the best version (its slightly above average at best)
Was that the voice actress that played her mother
Omg ellie gave birth to ellie!
So the real cure for the virus is to get mothers infected right before giving birth, and the kid is safe?
That seems not only unethical but also risky also like a BIG OL RETCON
Its not unethical when the alternative is absolute human extingsion, and not like the docs had any morality problems with wanting to cut open a kid for being immune
Neil can’t write an amoral moral dilemma to save his life can he?
>The Last of Us is....LBGT and that's stunning and powerful
pozzed trash IP
>Will you be picking up the pc port at the end of the month?
Fuck yeah I am, I can't wait for the ellie/sarah mods
So they need to get the cordiceps from ellies brain, and the docs really are so inept to take a small sample without killing her? Does drunkmann not know that modern medicine can remove tumors from brain without killing the patient?
Bella Ramsay isn't hot enough to play the role of Ellie.
I don't but Steam game when SteamUnlocked is a far better alternative
Man that gunfight felt so out of place, it might have been fine if they built it up, showed us that Joel is someone capable of these gunfights but throughout the show they made it a point that Joel is not as strong as he was in the game, they really nerfed him in a lot of ways, he could barely hold his own against a couple of guys.
Then suddenly he's a one man army capable of taking out a bunch of fireflies all alone?
What does the human actor look like a girl with down syndrome when Ellen Paige was clearly the correct casting call?
she was cute when they hired her for game of thrones when she was a e-boi, but those British genes kicked in