The Last of US Discussion

[Casual Shinji]

Oh and "Look, we are showing that this guy is gay, although it has no impact on the story! Look at how modern and tolerant we are!"

Except that the game never flat-out tells you he's gay, since it isn't important. Just as it doesn't flat-out tell you Joel is straight.

Frank could've just been a very close friend, and that magazine could've simply been part of a pile Bill gathered up unknowingly. We know it isn't, but nothing about what you see shoves the gay in your face. And that's exactly how it should be.

...And why should him being gay have an impact on the story at all?

What makes Bill such a great character is that he presents himself as the typical lone wolf badass, but it's just an act. Bill giving that standard "Caring/looking after someone will only get you killed" speech, that you hear in every post-apocalypse story, is him totally lying to himself. Because when you get to Frank's house you figure out Frank in all likelihood left him, and probably never even loved Bill to begin with. So now Bill is left with the knowledge that he didn't abandon Frank, but that he himself was abandoned by someone who never loved him in the first place. And that in the end he's just a lonely pathetic old man.

It's the game using the familiar to pull a few tricks.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Oh and "Look, we are showing that this guy is gay, although it has no impact on the story! Look at how modern and tolerant we are!"

Say what? Showing that other characters are heterosexual is fine, despite having no impact on the rest of the game, but do the same to a homosexual character and it is pandering?

Seriously, fuck that. I am personally happy that games have finally reached the point where developers feel comfortable putting homosexual characters in their games without making a big deal out of their sexual orientation. I'd much rather have that than games that make a big fucking deal about how "special" or "alternative" it is and demand that a homosexual character have a plot line specifically about their homosexuality.

Suggesting that homosexual NPCs need plot lines or story events about their sexuality is about as stupid as suggesting that every non-caucasian character needs a plot line or story event about their ethnicity and how it is different from that of white people. I think we can both agree that my latter suggestion is outrageously racist. So how is your comment not homophobic?

 

[Mister K]

Oh and "Look, we are showing that this guy is gay, although it has no impact on the story! Look at how modern and tolerant we are!"

Because if a guy is gay they have to highlight it and make him get over some prejudice or make him a comedy bit???

You missed the point of it btw, one of the themes of the game is companionship. The need to have someone 'someone to fight for'; joel and his daughter, joel and tess, joel and ellie, joel's bro and his new wife, billy and his 'friend', Henry and Sam (remember, he commited suicide seconds after his brother died- in story terms these characters were Joel&Ellie's 'foil'), David and his twisted need for some alpha female partner.

Everybody needs someone to lean on; either lover, friend, sibling etc. Billie was another example of this and him dealing with his lack of companionship in his own way (isolating himself). His previous relationship just happened to be gay, the gay part wasn't important expect to further emphasise it could be any type of relationship to help you get buy.
All this is tied into the finale of the story when Joel and Ellie decide to be together. It's all relevant.

They also weren't afraid to have a lil' joke about it either with the magazine scene.

You clearly didn't understand it and/or are trying to skew anything to support your agenda that the game is some cheap oscar bait. The game is far from perfect but this was not one of its problems.

And YOU completely missed MY point.
I do not care about sexual prefferences of a person. What I don't like is showeling in minorities of any kind for the sake of looking modern and tolerant. Like, I don't know, putting a black actor in the movie not because he/she is great, but because, well, you must have diversity in the cast or you'll be called racist/homophobic/sexist/etc.

If it was other game that was made with greater care and love(for example, once again TWD), I wouldn't have cared at all, or maybe liked the guy (depending on the writing). But in a game, where everything feels artificial for me, where every tear-jerking moment, or some great reveal feels like an attempt to become awarded by golden dildo-man? It seems really wrong.

But, once again, that is what I think, not the ultimate truth.

And I do apologize for thinking differently from you, because God save us all if people will actually DARE to have their own opinions, that are not like those of greater part of the community. We may even, God forbid, start having democratic society, or some other desease that will cause humanity to crumble. Like equal rights, for example.

 

[Mister K]

Oh and "Look, we are showing that this guy is gay, although it has no impact on the story! Look at how modern and tolerant we are!"

Say what? Showing that other characters are heterosexual is fine, despite having no impact on the rest of the game, but do the same to a homosexual character and it is pandering?

Seriously, fuck that. I am personally happy that games have finally reached the point where developers feel comfortable putting homosexual characters in their games without making a big deal out of their sexual orientation. I'd much rather have that than games that make a big fucking deal about how "special" or "alternative" it is and demand that a homosexual character have a plot line specifically about their homosexuality.

Suggesting that homosexual NPCs need plot lines or story events about their sexuality is about as stupid as suggesting that every non-caucasian character needs a plot line or story event about their ethnicity and how it is different from that of white people. I think we can both agree that my latter suggestion is outrageously racist. So how is your comment not homophobic?

Sorry for being lazy, but I'll reply with my quote to other guy.

Oh and "Look, we are showing that this guy is gay, although it has no impact on the story! Look at how modern and tolerant we are!"

Because if a guy is gay they have to highlight it and make him get over some prejudice or make him a comedy bit???

You missed the point of it btw, one of the themes of the game is companionship. The need to have someone 'someone to fight for'; joel and his daughter, joel and tess, joel and ellie, joel's bro and his new wife, billy and his 'friend', Henry and Sam (remember, he commited suicide seconds after his brother died- in story terms these characters were Joel&Ellie's 'foil'), David and his twisted need for some alpha female partner.

Everybody needs someone to lean on; either lover, friend, sibling etc. Billie was another example of this and him dealing with his lack of companionship in his own way (isolating himself). His previous relationship just happened to be gay, the gay part wasn't important expect to further emphasise it could be any type of relationship to help you get buy.
All this is tied into the finale of the story when Joel and Ellie decide to be together. It's all relevant.

They also weren't afraid to have a lil' joke about it either with the magazine scene.

You clearly didn't understand it and/or are trying to skew anything to support your agenda that the game is some cheap oscar bait. The game is far from perfect but this was not one of its problems.

And YOU completely missed MY point.
I do not care about sexual prefferences of a person. What I don't like is showeling in minorities of any kind for the sake of looking modern and tolerant. Like, I don't know, putting a black actor in the movie not because he/she is great, but because, well, you must have diversity in the cast or you'll be called racist/homophobic/sexist/etc.

If it was other game that was made with greater care and love(for example, once again TWD), I wouldn't have cared at all, or maybe liked the guy (depending on the writing). But in a game, where everything feels artificial for me, where every tear-jerking moment, or some great reveal feels like an attempt to become awarded by golden dildo-man? It seems really wrong.

But, once again, that is what I think, not the ultimate truth.

And I do apologize for thinking differently from you, because God save us all if people will actually DARE to have their own opinions, that are not like those of greater part of the community. We may even, God forbid, start having democratic society, or some other desease that will cause humanity to crumble. Like equal rights, for example.

Oh and "Look, we are showing that this guy is gay, although it has no impact on the story! Look at how modern and tolerant we are!"

Except that the game never flat-out tells you he's gay, since it isn't important. Just as it doesn't flat-out tell you Joel is straight.

Frank could've just been a very close friend, and that magazine could've simply been part of a pile Bill gathered up unknowingly. We know it isn't, but nothing about what you see shoves the gay in your face. And that's exactly how it should be.

...And why should him being gay have an impact on the story at all?

What makes Bill such a great character is that he presents himself as the typical lone wolf badass, but it's just an act. Bill giving that standard "Caring/looking after someone will only get you killed" speech, that you hear in every post-apocalypse story, is him totally lying to himself. Because when you get to Frank's house you figure out Frank in all likelihood left him, and probably never even loved Bill to begin with. So now Bill is left with the knowledge that he didn't abandon Frank, but that he himself was abandoned by someone who never loved him in the first place. And that in the end he's just a lonely pathetic old man.

It's the game using the familiar to pull a few tricks.

Ah, finally civilized reply.
I simply CANNOT disagree with you. As I pointed out to other people in this thread, I do not care about who people want to sleep with. But this game feels so artificial (for me, at least) that I cannot find actual positive moments in it, only attempts to force you to like it or feel bad for not liking it,sorry.

 

[00slash00]

One of the best game stories told? Absolutely. Best game of the generation? Not even close.

I strongly disagree with that. The story got good by the Winter chapter,but for about the first 70% of the game I found the story to be really predictable and seemed like the writers had a check list of every zombie survival story cliche.

The game play was my major issue. Maybe it's the fact that I've been a PC gamer for years and suck at aiming with a controller, but I thought the shooting controls were awful and just moving around felt awkward and sluggish. On top of that, they kept taking this supposed stealth game and trapping you in a small room and forcing you to mow down wave after wave of enemies until the game decides you're allowed to move on.

And I think the scene with Ellie was significant because, and maybe I was just reading too much in to things, but I got the impression that he was a pedophile and that's why he wanted to keep her alive. Plus, there's a difference between shooting someone in the head and looking them in the eyes as you kill them

 

[IronMit]

Oh and "Look, we are showing that this guy is gay, although it has no impact on the story! Look at how modern and tolerant we are!"

Say what? Showing that other characters are heterosexual is fine, despite having no impact on the rest of the game, but do the same to a homosexual character and it is pandering?

Seriously, fuck that. I am personally happy that games have finally reached the point where developers feel comfortable putting homosexual characters in their games without making a big deal out of their sexual orientation. I'd much rather have that than games that make a big fucking deal about how "special" or "alternative" it is and demand that a homosexual character have a plot line specifically about their homosexuality.

Suggesting that homosexual NPCs need plot lines or story events about their sexuality is about as stupid as suggesting that every non-caucasian character needs a plot line or story event about their ethnicity and how it is different from that of white people. I think we can both agree that my latter suggestion is outrageously racist. So how is your comment not homophobic?

Don't bother replying to this nutter. What he/she posted to me is hands down the dumbest thing I have ever read on escapist forums. He somehow twisted the conversation to Oscars, Denzil, God, diseases and Democracy. It's so bad I don't know if his winding us up on purpose or if it's serious.
I thought about breaking down every dumb thing he typed one by one but that would take far too long and he would probably start talking about asteroids or something

 

[pha kin su pah]

don't people realise that the game isn't set with "zombies" right? infected really have little to do with it, (aside the whole "cure" aspect) they are a motivational set piece, something to change the pace/combat.

the story is like the walking dead, in that it has "zombies" but its more about survival and lengths humans go to survive, kind of like the movie "the Road"

the combat was fine, on lower difficulties it was a shoot out, but if the game ever turned that way, you needed to bump the difficulty up. there needs to be an essence of resource management and scarcity. also in the lock up areas are there so you don't just sneak past everything, where you have to deal with things. i only have 2 complaints about the combat, an element of surprise missing, i would have liked a bit more something along the lines of an infected or hunter stumbling upon me from behind in a "safe zone", it would be difficult considering a lot of the story has character interactions at certain pieces but it can still be worked in there. the other complaint is there needed to be a couple of 3 party events, have some infected pouring in from an area and have to deal with them and hunters.

other points have already been answered.

i think its up there for game of the generation, its probably the only game in the last couple of years i have ever gone back to enjoy it again.

 

[DrBoomstickESQ]

Most people who didn't enjoy the game hear about all the 10's and amazing reviews before playing. It's almost impossible to enjoy something after it's been overly hyped.(which is why I'm buying GTAV on release)

If you just sit down, turn the volume up and take the experience for what it is, it's hard to dislike it.

 

[Thoughtful_Salt]

a lot of people here seem pleased that the brutality emphasizes the struggle of joel and ellie, and yet when Lara Croft goes through this in Tomb Raider everyone just notices her lack of changing her shirt. Sigh. I suppose Tomb Raider excels in gameplay where The Last Of Us fails and vice versa.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I feel the gameplay actually added some things long gone from action adventure games. Like health bars and carrying more than two weapons. And the way it implemented the latter was brilliant: You can only carry two long guns and two hand guns at a time, but at any moment you can go into your backpack and switch out your selection. And along with crafting and healing, it's all done in real-time.

The carrying of multiple weapons in a backpack really hurts the game's atmosphere as a survival story. Even being able to carry 2 long guns and 2 hand guns does damage to the survival aspects. It makes the game way too easy for what it was marketed as in the long run. Its shooting mechanics are also not up to par with most other action adventure titles.

Its story is very, very vanilla Hollywood and that is something that gamers need to stop calling amazing every time a game cranks a Hollywood movie style story out. It leads to the stories in Western video games becoming as saturated as Western cinema is these days. Simply making a story that would serve as good if it were a movie should not be good enough for gamers that enjoy a game with story. And the massive near perfect scores don't help, then again reviews have lost all integrity at this point if you look at Total War Rome II's scores...

Don't get me wrong, The Last of Us is still a great game, but for what it advertised, I AM ALIVE did a much better job at conveying a story that involved survival as well as implementing gameplay mechanics that forced the player to make life and death choices like whether or not now is a good time to drink that last bottle of water. I AM ALIVE also handle minimal resources in a much better fashion than The Last of Us. Resources in The Last of Us are just too easy to find for a survival style game.

 

[Windcaler]

Shortly after the game released I made a thread about the last of us and its gameplay, at first calling it very generic but after some discussion Ive changed my mind a bit to call it simply similar to many other third person games. That thread is at teh following link if you care to give it a read: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.820007-The-last-of-us-Great-story-with-generic-gameplay#19781622

I would not call the game the greatest story ever told either. IMO that title is fought over from 7 or 8 different games made over the past 30 years. That said, its also a cliche story where the theme is the sanctity of life of one person (often willing to sacrifice themselves for others) vs the betterment of many lives. Thats a theme that has been done in literature, cinema, and games more times then I care to count. However I still believe the story is well told and does great characerization that remains through the game. Joel for example is extremely selfish and his actions reflect that through the entire game.

IMO the last of us is a good game, but its similar gameplay to alpha protocol and its cliche message and themes stop it from being "one of the greatest stories ever told"

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

a lot of people here seem pleased that the brutality emphasizes the struggle of joel and ellie, and yet when Lara Croft goes through this in Tomb Raider everyone just notices her lack of changing her shirt. Sigh. I suppose Tomb Raider excels in gameplay where The Last Of Us fails and vice versa.

Rather, the struggle to survive in The Last of Us is not as over the top at that of Tomb Raider. I love both games, but Tomb Raider had a tendency to put Lara through way too much punishment in cutscenes only to shrug it off during gameplay. When Joel faces severe cutscene punishment in The Last of Us (the rebar scene), the gameplay shifts to show the player how bad Joel is doing and a short while after it cuts forward a few months and he's still doing really bad. When Lara faced a similar experience (the first scene of TR when she falls from the "cocoon") and gets her abdomen impaled she shrugs it off by sitting at a fire over night.

Simply put, The Last of Us handled trauma much better than Tomb Raider did. As far as both game play and story goes they are also very different beasts and shouldn't really be compared like this.

 

[G-Force]

I think the gameplay was the best feature and handled wonderfully. With so many games dedicated to giving players power fantasies, it was refreshing to play as someone who is so vulnerable in direct combat. Joel's gun swayed, his punches were heavy and sluggish and it was a real achievement to walk out of a firefight with half your life remaining. Stealth was a necessity but had its risk as the only real stealth weapon was hard to aim and stealth kills had long animations making them not the go to decision if you saw enemies bunched together. Add to this how there was a surprising amount of exploration in the game and how crafting materials and switching weapons took time and you had yourselves a fun experience.

 

[Mister K]

Don't bother replying to this nutter. What he/she posted to me is hands down the dumbest thing I have ever read on escapist forums. He somehow twisted the conversation to Oscars, Denzil, God, diseases and Democracy. It's so bad I don't know if his winding us up on purpose or if it's serious.
I thought about breaking down every dumb thing he typed one by one but that would take far too long and he would probably start talking about asteroids or something

Most respected Mr/Ms IronMit. Please do calm down and know, that while I wasn't, as you say, "winding you up on purpose", I also was not entirely serious. Problem of forums is that they can't show facial expresion and intonation of the person that types. Now, while typing THIS particular reply, I am trying to be as serious as possible to not be misunderstood once again.
It is just that this particular game was "hyped up" too much and I, as a result, was hyped for it too. When I finally bought it, I was quite dissapointed. I, as a person, who subjectively judges any sort of media, just like any other person does, found it being full of overly-used tropes, such as grizzled man with a sad past, moxie girl, etc. I did not finish the game by myself, but watched a Let Play of it (because I still was interested in it's story, apparantly), hoping that maybe I'll feel anything but deja vu. In the end, I didn't. I felt that this game wasn't made with required passion for it to actually be a masterpiece and I also felt, that it shows the same result as "The Plane", mentioned by my in earlier replies. To be precise, I felt that this game, just as mentioned movie, used too many old tropes in a low quality manner.

As for Bill... I felt that pointing out his sexuality wasn't something that should have been done in such manner. To be precise, his notes about his former lover served their purpose nicely, but inclussion of the "pornographic magazine" scene felt forced and unnecesary. This person helped the protagonists to escape, probably trapping himself in the city full of infected as a result, yet Ellie ridiculed him for having such tastes in press. At least that was my initial thought. And, since, as I already mentioned, I think that this game is full of tropes, I also assumed that his sexuality was, well, not of conservative kind, because authors wanted diversity for the sake of diversity.

I was not typing most of my posts in this thread in a serious manner, so my apologies if you felt offended by them. As I said, forums cannot show the full gamma of emotions.

P.S. If you are still willing to "break down every dumb thing I typed one by one", then I am more than willing to participate in this discussion, because I DO enjoy dialogues, especially those that are calm and have a result, that is equally sattisfying for both parties. I also vow to try and speak with you in an absolutely serious manner, so that we will avoid missunderstanding.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I feel the gameplay actually added some things long gone from action adventure games. Like health bars and carrying more than two weapons. And the way it implemented the latter was brilliant: You can only carry two long guns and two hand guns at a time, but at any moment you can go into your backpack and switch out your selection. And along with crafting and healing, it's all done in real-time.

The carrying of multiple weapons in a backpack really hurts the game's atmosphere as a survival story. Even being able to carry 2 long guns and 2 hand guns does damage to the survival aspects. It makes the game way too easy for what it was marketed as in the long run. Its shooting mechanics are also not up to par with most other action adventure titles.

I will agree with that in terms of the flamethrower, which takes away the threat of any infected encounter from then on. Granted you get it very late into the game where there are only three infected areas left where you're able to use it. But the fact that it stun-locks all infected, even the Bloaters, was not a smart move by Naughty Dog.

But for the rest, no. I like that the game gives you some weapon variety, instead of just a handgun and just a shotgun or rifle. The way you burn through ammo, having just a two weapon limit would be infuriating as all hell. It would make less sense for a person in that situation to only carry two guns at a time, instead of trying to carry as many as he can.

And the shooting mechanincs reinforced that Joel is not a gunman, he's just a man with a gun. Naughty Dog took a huge risk by implementing the amount of gun sway that they did, and it paid off fantastically. With every shoot I fired I felt like I was firing a real gun and not a videogame weapon.

Its story is very, very vanilla Hollywood and that is something that gamers need to stop calling amazing every time a game cranks a Hollywood movie style story out. It leads to the stories in Western video games becoming as saturated as Western cinema is these days. Simply making a story that would serve as good if it were a movie should not be good enough for gamers that enjoy a game with story. And the massive near perfect scores don't help, then again reviews have lost all integrity at this point if you look at Total War Rome II's scores...

It... really isn't though.

The game's story is incredibly nihilistic, and not in the typical brooding fashion either. The title itself indicates this; It's about the last remnants of humanity slowly disintegrating, and whatever physical presence we might've had on the world being taken over by nature untill no trace of our existence remains.

And I'm sure I wasn't the only who thought either Joel or Ellie was going to die, seeing as that is generally the cheapest manner by which to force empathy for a bonding couple. Instead they both survive with Joel having completely lost a grip on reality, and Ellie's enthusiasm and hope for a better future viciously snapped in half. Living out the rest of their lives in a community which is just as likely to be taken over by bandits or infected as all those places you've traveled through.

That is far from your usual Hollywood fare.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

And I'm sure I wasn't the only who thought either Joel or Ellie was going to die, seeing as that is generally the cheapest manner by which to force empathy for a bonding couple. Instead they both survive with Joel having completely lost a grip on reality, and Ellie's enthusiasm and hope for a better future viciously snapped in half. Living out the rest of their lives in a community which is just as likely to be taken over by bandits or infected as all those places you've traveled through.

That is far from your usual Hollywood fare.

I interpreted the ending differently. The settlement where Joel's brother live is the only area in the game in which humanity is trying to build something new instead of living off the remnants of the old society. Instead of clinging to a past humanity is unable to reclaim they are moving forward and trying to adapt to their new situation. This makes it opposite both the Fireflies and the remains of the Federal government, one who wishes to take over what is left of the old society by any means and the other who wishes to preserve it by any means, imposing more and more draconian measures to keep the facade up.

That's why I think the ending is inherently a hopeful one. Joel saves Ellie from certain death at the hands of an organization that would never have been able to make something good out of her death. Instead he takes them to the only place shown in the game where both he and Ellie have a chance of being part of something that might bring any form of future to mankind.

It ties into the strong survival motif, in that the only way to truly survive is not to long for what you lost but accept your situation for what it is and build from there. Ellie is no longer trying to save a world she's never known and Joel is finally ready to move on from his dead daughter.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

Aw, I liked the combat.

I thought this game did a really good job of actually making combat a challenge. After a long history of gunning, stabbing, or otherwise beating to death with my bare hands countless enemies in a single conflict, it was nice to play a game that made me strategize if I saw anything more than three people. I loved to harrowing aspect of really counting my bullets and really making sure that every shot counted. And I really loved how the traditional "if I run fast enough, I can't get hit" gets a big LOL NOPE in this game.

I don't know, I guess I don't find the gameplay as conventional as you do.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I interpreted the ending differently. The settlement where Joel's brother live is the only area in the game in which humanity is trying to build something new instead of living off the remnants of the old society. Instead of clinging to a past humanity is unable to reclaim they are moving forward and trying to adapt to their new situation. This makes it opposite both the Fireflies and the remains of the Federal government, one who wishes to take over what is left of the old society by any means and the other who wishes to preserve it by any means, imposing more and more draconian measures to keep the facade up.

That's why I think the ending is inherently a hopeful one. Joel saves Ellie from certain death at the hands of an organization that would never have been able to make something good out of her death. Instead he takes them to the only place shown in the game where both he and Ellie have a chance of being part of something that might bring any form of future to mankind.

It ties into the strong survival motif, in that the only way to truly survive is not to long for what you lost but accept your situation for what it is and build from there. Ellie is no longer trying to save a world she's never known and Joel is finally ready to move on from his dead daughter.

It all depends on how you look at it, I guess.

To me that was the game's way of pulling the wool over your eyes with what is at face value a possitive ending, yet it is laden with a depressive overtone. I said this in another thread, but that final gameplay section shows you Joel and Ellie have kind of switched personality. Joel is all enthusiastic, and Ellie has become world weary. And during this entire scene you hear a dreadfully somber and even sinister score ironically titled 'Home'.


And then ofcourse there's the fact of what Joel did, and then lied right to Ellie's face about. Now this is not about right or wrong, since those concepts hold little value in the world they live in. It's about what it says about Joel as a character in that he has now become hopelessly depended on Ellie. It serves as a nice little breakdown of the Hero/Damsel trope. And in way I'd almost compare it to King Kong, with Joel's rampage through the hospital to save someone who doesn't necessarily need to be saved, only because he would be lost without her, and not the other way around.

The irony is that Ellie making Joel feel love again after many years doesn't have a possitive effect on him. It actually makes him go a bit bonkers, terrified of losing her. Joel's final line "You need to keep finding something to fight for" has a double meaning that shows just how scared and delusional he has become.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

It all depends on how you look at it, I guess.

To me that was the game's way of pulling the wool over your eyes with what is at face value a possitive ending, yet it is laden with a depressive overtone. I said this in another thread, but that final gameplay section shows you Joel and Ellie have kind of switched personality. Joel is all enthusiastic, and Ellie has become world weary. And during this entire scene you hear a dreadfully somber and even sinister score ironically titled 'Home'.

And then ofcourse there's the fact of what Joel did, and then lied right to Ellie's face about. Now this is not about right or wrong, since those concepts hold little value in the world they live in. It's about what it says about Joel as a character in that he has now become hopelessly depended on Ellie. It serves as a nice little breakdown of the Hero/Damsel trope. And in way I'd almost compare it to King Kong, with Joel's rampage through the hospital to save someone who doesn't necessarily need to be saved, only because he would be lost without her, and not the other way around.

The irony is that Ellie making Joel feel love again after many years doesn't have a possitive effect on him. It actually makes him go a bit bonkers, terrified of losing her. Joel's final line "You need to keep finding something to fight for" has a double meaning that shows just how scared and delusional he has become.

Apparently it is a matter of perspective, as your take on the ending works just as well. What I think it really suggests however, is that Naughty Dog managed to create one of the deeper stories in contemporary gaming. While games like Planescape: Torment gets touted for its' great handling of a philosophical question in its' storytelling and games like Koto2/Spec Ops: The Line are heralded for their deconstruction of their respective genre I think The Last of Us is the first game to really attempt a deep character piece and pull it off well.

The fact that they made a game with two protagonists that aren't very likable (Joel is an asshole, Ellie is a bratty, smart ass) but manages to make the player care about them speaks loads about how well told the story is.