I never had any real opinion on the Fireflies because literally everybody in that game was a total fucking cartoon. The writing was not good, and it is an insanely overrated game. Of course the Fireflies are a cartoon too, because the game had absolutely zero subtlety to it.
Half the theory crafting on the Internet is Redditors spazzing out because "they'll become dictators and control people with the vaccine", ignoring the part where 99% of human history was made under the direction of "dictators".
And literally if anything could be assumed about "control" of the world in TLOU it would be that most of the survivors have to go because clearly nearly everybody you meet is for some reason a deranged retarded psychopath because everybody has this dumbass nihilistic idea that "post apocalypse" means everybody becomes a Mad Max savage.
Meanwhile humanity faced multiple plagues that killed huge percentages of the population and disrupted society and exactly zero times did everybody turn into frothing cannibals.
So yeah the writing pushed the idea that they were incompetent and couldn't make a cure because it's the same extremism every writer feels they need to make it obvious who the "good guys" are.
It's like the Neo Nazi gun store owner who randomly shows up in Falling Down in one of the dumbest scenes in movie history.
The writing was not good, and it is an insanely overrated game.
Overrated yes, but I think it was fine for what it was. The writing worked internally and the emotional beats could land without stipulation.
they'll become dictators and control people with the vaccine
While this might seem too far for you, the idea that they have no logistical capability to mass produce and distribute the vaxx is just basic logic about the world and their shoddy setup. Which makes it not entirely too far an idea that they'd use it to increase their power and control of things, much closer to something like the USSR starving entire nations to death than a simple dictator. They've already shown themselves a few times to be acting in self-interest instead of altruism, so its easy to guess they'd use it as bargaining.
Its all headcanon assumptions, but there is nothing that proves it otherwise to support the second game's assertion that they were 100% morally good guys who were gonna save the world. The details of assumption doesn't need to be fully accurate, only able to support the idea that you could reasonably believe they wouldn't be that.
So yeah the writing pushed the idea that they were incompetent and couldn't make a cure
Its been a long time, but I don't think it was ever actually said in the first game. Its only implied by the fact that they killed someone immune before without success and then looking around to say "this don't seem possible." The game wants to say its "possible" to make Joel look morally grey, so its all those prior assumptions that says "they couldn't possibly make a cure."
Plus the fact that you can't vaccinate against fungal infections as far as I know, meaning its literally impossible. But that seems to be a pure writing mistake on their part likely stemming from them changing it from likely zombies to cordyceps mid development.
I do agree entirely that the fact that everyone seems to be a Mad Max psycho does mean the world probably isn't worth saving. The first game implies there is stable civilization where you live at the very beginning but then you never revisit any form of it. Its a whole lot of "humans are the real monsters" wank, like all hack writers.
While this might seem too far for you, the idea that they have no logistical capability to mass produce and distribute the vaxx is just basic logic about the world and their shoddy setup.
This is why bad writers poorly writing a game world that has no internal logic don't write good games.
What you're saying is logical and sensible, but you're making that argument in a game where there was no logic, there was no sense, and as you pointed out, it's clear that the writers didn't know what they were talking about half the time.
Yes, formulating a vaccine would require a massive lab, chemical vats, precision instrumentation, and probably many hard-to-acquire reagents.
But formulating a functional society requires fresh water, large-scale farming, sanitation, and cooperation.
The game decided to literally wave it's hand and determine that absolutely fuck-all about any of that was actually needed, so why do they need a vaccine lab? The writer just had to write one line claiming they could do it and who can say otherwise? 'Well we never see the lab', well we never see what the fuck this retarded cannibal village is eating to sustain a thousand people, up in the mountains, in winter, with nearly no vehicles. They just somehow survive because the game needed them to.
We ask the same questions as to how the nuclear-blasted ruins of Washington DC in Fallout 3 can somehow sustain an entire village living in a rusted aircraft carrier surrounded by a million billion Supermutants that look like they require 12,000 calories a day of pure protein to sustain their killer gains. There's zero farming, zero logistics, nothing at all. Everyone just survives because that's what they need the game to do. Christ the entire fucking game plot revolves around the fact that all the water is pure poison, what the fuck is everybody actually drinking then?
You don't ask because the writer didn't know either.
We ask the same questions as to how the nuclear-blasted ruins of Washington DC in Fallout 3 can somehow sustain an entire village living in a rusted aircraft carrier surrounded by a million billion Supermutants that look like they require 12,000 calories a day of pure protein to sustain their killer gains. There's zero farming, zero logistics, nothing at all.
This is a fundamental problem with all zombie media. The zombies just keep shuffling around without food or water till the end of time, as if the reanimate virus is also a perpetual energy machine and an antibacterial agent.
Well half of that comes about because lazy writers keep trying to use zombies as metaphors for humans they don't like, like Americans or consumers. Something in which the problem is somewhat perpetually able to continue.
It happens a lot with "satire or social commentary" media, where the message is meant to handwave away any logic or even internal consistency.
but you're making that argument in a game where there was no logic, there was no sense, and as you pointed out, it's clear that the writers didn't know what they were talking about half the time.
Honestly the only reason this point even exists is because the second game tried to piss on our face and say it was raining. None of these questions or logic mattered that much until then, because it was left ambiguous to a point where you could simply pick your preferred explanation and it was open enough to be possible.
I think that's passable writing. It may come about from lack of ability or skill, but it at least functions at what it needs to.
The second game attempting to hard confirm certain facts means those facts need to check out with what is already established, and when it contradicts that, and basic sense, it unravels quickly. Its just another way to say "lol Part 2 bad" but without needing to get into the Woke elements, because sometimes that'll get you tuned out.
You don't ask because the writer didn't know either.
Most media runs on the suspension of disbelief to some amount. Without it you would have to bog down your story with a lot of time spent talking about worldbuilding that isn't usually very interesting and often isn't necessary. Its why hard sci-fi is a niche genre, because it does spend that time.
Its not an inherently bad thing, because its an agreement between audience and creator to allow the story to function.
But that contract needs to be respected from both ends. When the writer or whoever starts making hard claims about things, then they need to be able to fit in established framework and hold up to at least a base level scrutiny.
I never had any real opinion on the Fireflies because literally everybody in that game was a total fucking cartoon. The writing was not good, and it is an insanely overrated game. Of course the Fireflies are a cartoon too, because the game had absolutely zero subtlety to it.
Half the theory crafting on the Internet is Redditors spazzing out because "they'll become dictators and control people with the vaccine", ignoring the part where 99% of human history was made under the direction of "dictators".
And literally if anything could be assumed about "control" of the world in TLOU it would be that most of the survivors have to go because clearly nearly everybody you meet is for some reason a deranged retarded psychopath because everybody has this dumbass nihilistic idea that "post apocalypse" means everybody becomes a Mad Max savage.
Meanwhile humanity faced multiple plagues that killed huge percentages of the population and disrupted society and exactly zero times did everybody turn into frothing cannibals.
So yeah the writing pushed the idea that they were incompetent and couldn't make a cure because it's the same extremism every writer feels they need to make it obvious who the "good guys" are.
It's like the Neo Nazi gun store owner who randomly shows up in Falling Down in one of the dumbest scenes in movie history.
Overrated yes, but I think it was fine for what it was. The writing worked internally and the emotional beats could land without stipulation.
While this might seem too far for you, the idea that they have no logistical capability to mass produce and distribute the vaxx is just basic logic about the world and their shoddy setup. Which makes it not entirely too far an idea that they'd use it to increase their power and control of things, much closer to something like the USSR starving entire nations to death than a simple dictator. They've already shown themselves a few times to be acting in self-interest instead of altruism, so its easy to guess they'd use it as bargaining.
Its all headcanon assumptions, but there is nothing that proves it otherwise to support the second game's assertion that they were 100% morally good guys who were gonna save the world. The details of assumption doesn't need to be fully accurate, only able to support the idea that you could reasonably believe they wouldn't be that.
Its been a long time, but I don't think it was ever actually said in the first game. Its only implied by the fact that they killed someone immune before without success and then looking around to say "this don't seem possible." The game wants to say its "possible" to make Joel look morally grey, so its all those prior assumptions that says "they couldn't possibly make a cure."
Plus the fact that you can't vaccinate against fungal infections as far as I know, meaning its literally impossible. But that seems to be a pure writing mistake on their part likely stemming from them changing it from likely zombies to cordyceps mid development.
I do agree entirely that the fact that everyone seems to be a Mad Max psycho does mean the world probably isn't worth saving. The first game implies there is stable civilization where you live at the very beginning but then you never revisit any form of it. Its a whole lot of "humans are the real monsters" wank, like all hack writers.
This is why bad writers poorly writing a game world that has no internal logic don't write good games.
What you're saying is logical and sensible, but you're making that argument in a game where there was no logic, there was no sense, and as you pointed out, it's clear that the writers didn't know what they were talking about half the time.
Yes, formulating a vaccine would require a massive lab, chemical vats, precision instrumentation, and probably many hard-to-acquire reagents.
But formulating a functional society requires fresh water, large-scale farming, sanitation, and cooperation.
The game decided to literally wave it's hand and determine that absolutely fuck-all about any of that was actually needed, so why do they need a vaccine lab? The writer just had to write one line claiming they could do it and who can say otherwise? 'Well we never see the lab', well we never see what the fuck this retarded cannibal village is eating to sustain a thousand people, up in the mountains, in winter, with nearly no vehicles. They just somehow survive because the game needed them to.
We ask the same questions as to how the nuclear-blasted ruins of Washington DC in Fallout 3 can somehow sustain an entire village living in a rusted aircraft carrier surrounded by a million billion Supermutants that look like they require 12,000 calories a day of pure protein to sustain their killer gains. There's zero farming, zero logistics, nothing at all. Everyone just survives because that's what they need the game to do. Christ the entire fucking game plot revolves around the fact that all the water is pure poison, what the fuck is everybody actually drinking then?
You don't ask because the writer didn't know either.
This is a fundamental problem with all zombie media. The zombies just keep shuffling around without food or water till the end of time, as if the reanimate virus is also a perpetual energy machine and an antibacterial agent.
Well half of that comes about because lazy writers keep trying to use zombies as metaphors for humans they don't like, like Americans or consumers. Something in which the problem is somewhat perpetually able to continue.
It happens a lot with "satire or social commentary" media, where the message is meant to handwave away any logic or even internal consistency.
With one exception. 28 days later. The plot of the first was that they just quarantined England to let the zombies all starve to death.
Honestly the only reason this point even exists is because the second game tried to piss on our face and say it was raining. None of these questions or logic mattered that much until then, because it was left ambiguous to a point where you could simply pick your preferred explanation and it was open enough to be possible.
I think that's passable writing. It may come about from lack of ability or skill, but it at least functions at what it needs to.
The second game attempting to hard confirm certain facts means those facts need to check out with what is already established, and when it contradicts that, and basic sense, it unravels quickly. Its just another way to say "lol Part 2 bad" but without needing to get into the Woke elements, because sometimes that'll get you tuned out.
Most media runs on the suspension of disbelief to some amount. Without it you would have to bog down your story with a lot of time spent talking about worldbuilding that isn't usually very interesting and often isn't necessary. Its why hard sci-fi is a niche genre, because it does spend that time.
Its not an inherently bad thing, because its an agreement between audience and creator to allow the story to function.
But that contract needs to be respected from both ends. When the writer or whoever starts making hard claims about things, then they need to be able to fit in established framework and hold up to at least a base level scrutiny.