'The Last of Us' - Season 2 Thread (NO GAME SPOILERS!) | HBO | Neil Druckmann stepping away from creative involvement

MostReal

Bandage Hand Steph
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
27,284
Reputation
3,737
Daps
62,475
Abby is bad casting. Just because she acts like a bytch don't make her menacing. But oh well, we watching.

They took Abby muscles away to make her more likable. In the game you was supposed to sympathize with Abby over Joel and Ellie but fans still hated her and often made comments about her brolic disposition :pacspit: Abby it's on site brolic bench!
 

ChatGPT-5

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
19,629
Reputation
3,268
Daps
61,031
:what: Like what in the hell are you talking about
besides people getting infected (which obviously is the most important factor) the vaccine , like literally does nothing to change the current society as it is

so your bullet points really don’t even make any sense
and to take a line from the first game, Joel does tell Ellie somewhere down the line that even though she’s immune, these infected significantly stronger & can still kill you
You're arguing that the vaccine is just a nice-to-have.
I’m arguing it was the only game-changing tool humanity had left.

Not a magic wand.
Not a full reset.

Just a door.
nuking the planet would’ve killed every single infected = stalkers , runners , clickers & bloaters etc. etc. …
as far the fungus/cordyceps itself— that’s why your brightest people would identify spores locations and avoid those areas and obviously don’t eat grains/wheat which we all know got this shyt started

and yes, it would be a very, very tough decision to nuke the planet with so many innocent people
But what is the difference from the current situation they wind it up with ; where damn near 70% of the entire world‘s population either died or became infected from the initial outbreak

and I still don’t understand why you think a vaccine changes everything in this iteration when you still have to deal with the current infected that’s literally trying to kill you at all cost
Other than a nuclear planet that eliminates all infected

:mindblown:

1. “Nuking the planet would’ve killed every infected.”

Let’s pause there.

Here’s why that wouldn’t work cleanly:​

  • Infected are everywhere.
    You’re assuming they’re clustered in city centers or military zones. But in-game, we see infected in sewers, caves, tunnels, snowy mountains, forests — they’re dispersed.
You'd need thousands of nukes to carpet bomb every inch of Earth — especially if you’re targeting runners wandering in rural Montana or some abandoned Colorado mine shaft.
  • Nukes don’t guarantee spore death.
    Cordyceps is airborne and heat-resistant in the lore.
    Nuking would blow spores into the upper atmosphere and unintentionally spread them, unless the entire globe was glassed and irradiated.
  • Survivability of the “bunkers” plan is sci-fi level.
    If 30% of the population is still uninfected (maybe 2 billion people worldwide), you're talking about wiping out billions of innocent survivors in hopes that maybe a few chosen elites last 50+ years in a bunker, repopulate the Earth, and maybe don’t bring Cordyceps back.
That’s not utilitarianism. That’s selective genocide dressed up as strategy.


🧠 2. “The vaccine doesn’t solve the existing infected problem.”

That’s true — and here's the honest reply:

The vaccine isn't supposed to solve everything. It's supposed to change the rules.

Here's what changes:​

  • People stop turning.
  • Survivors can travel, build, and form communities without risk of infection.
  • You stop multiplying the threat.
Once fewer people turn, infected become a static enemy, not a growing one.
Over time, humans win that attrition war.
Think about it like rats:

  • If you stop feeding them (i.e., stop getting infected), their population dies off.
  • You don’t need to cure the rats — just cut off the supply chain.

💣 3. “What’s the difference between nuking everyone and what happened anyway?”

You’re saying: "70% died anyway — may as well have nuked them and rebuilt from scratch."

But here’s the answer:

The 30% that survived did it with hope, grit, sacrifice, and their own hands.
They didn’t ask to be killed for being unlucky.
The Fireflies, FEDRA, Jackson, Abby’s camp — they’re all trying.
You don’t wipe them out just because a cleaner plan exists on paper.

Imagine telling Dina, Tommy, or Ellie:

“We’re gonna incinerate you because a theoretical world with 200 bunker babies sounds better.”
That’s inhuman.


Nukes remove the infection by removing the people. The vaccine removes the infection while giving people a future.

You want a final solution.

But The Last of Us isn’t about wiping the board.
It’s about how much we’re willing to do to preserve something — even when the world says it’s too late.

And Joel?
He preserved one person at the cost of the future.

You’re proposing preserving none to maybe build one 100 years later.

So tell me honestly:
If you were in that bunker and walked out 50 years later…
Would you be proud of what you saved?
 

Trav

TTWF🅾️.
Supporter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
40,283
Reputation
15,246
Daps
111,067
Reppin
Zone 6 BIA Silver Bullets BlockO
bernie-mac-smh.gif
 

null

...
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
35,474
Reputation
6,852
Daps
53,990
Reppin
UK, DE, GY, DMV
:mindblown:

vaccine = 1. a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease

:mjlol: that american multiple choice driven education system ... :picard:



taught to do stuff but not how to think.

quote an official reference in FULL.

link and all.

but you won't :russ:
 

kingofnyc

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
28,780
Reputation
1,670
Daps
59,477
Reppin
Boogie Down BX
You're arguing that the vaccine is just a nice-to-have.
I’m arguing it was the only game-changing tool humanity had left.

Not a magic wand.
Not a full reset.

Just a door.

1. “Nuking the planet would’ve killed every infected.”

Let’s pause there.

Here’s why that wouldn’t work cleanly:​

  • Infected are everywhere.
    You’re assuming they’re clustered in city centers or military zones. But in-game, we see infected in sewers, caves, tunnels, snowy mountains, forests — they’re dispersed.

  • Nukes don’t guarantee spore death.
    Cordyceps is airborne and heat-resistant in the lore.
    Nuking would blow spores into the upper atmosphere and unintentionally spread them, unless the entire globe was glassed and irradiated.
  • Survivability of the “bunkers” plan is sci-fi level.
    If 30% of the population is still uninfected (maybe 2 billion people worldwide), you're talking about wiping out billions of innocent survivors in hopes that maybe a few chosen elites last 50+ years in a bunker, repopulate the Earth, and maybe don’t bring Cordyceps back.
That’s not utilitarianism. That’s selective genocide dressed up as strategy.


🧠 2. “The vaccine doesn’t solve the existing infected problem.”

That’s true — and here's the honest reply:


Here's what changes:​

  • People stop turning.
  • Survivors can travel, build, and form communities without risk of infection.
  • You stop multiplying the threat.

Think about it like rats:

  • If you stop feeding them (i.e., stop getting infected), their population dies off.
  • You don’t need to cure the rats — just cut off the supply chain.

💣 3. “What’s the difference between nuking everyone and what happened anyway?”

You’re saying: "70% died anyway — may as well have nuked them and rebuilt from scratch."

But here’s the answer:


The Fireflies, FEDRA, Jackson, Abby’s camp — they’re all trying.
You don’t wipe them out just because a cleaner plan exists on paper.

Imagine telling Dina, Tommy, or Ellie:


That’s inhuman.


Nukes remove the infection by removing the people. The vaccine removes the infection while giving people a future.

You want a final solution.

But The Last of Us isn’t about wiping the board.
It’s about how much we’re willing to do to preserve something — even when the world says it’s too late.

And Joel?
He preserved one person at the cost of the future.

You’re proposing preserving none to maybe build one 100 years later.

So tell me honestly:
If you were in that bunker and walked out 50 years later…
Would you be proud of what you saved?

:snoop:

A simple Google = asking would a nuclear explosion kill cordyceps

While cordyceps are quite resilient, it's highly improbable they would survive a nuclear explosion and the ensuing fallout. The immediate effects of a nuclear blast, like intense heat, pressure, and radiation, would likely be lethal to the fungus. Additionally, the long-term environmental impact of nuclear fallout, such as radioactive contamination, would also pose significant challenges to fungal survival









Seems to me that you are moving the goal post when it comes to this nuclear explosion theory
So I ask you …. do you remember season 1 episode 2 the beginning/flashback from that episode ?

Where you had the Indonesian female scientist, is picked up by the military while she’s eating a lunch at a local restaurant where they take her to the facility to examine the specimen, then the dead individual as she pulls out a bunch of living/moving fungi outta their mouth
In the next scene, she’s sitting talking to the general telling him there’s no medication there’s no vaccine. There’s nothing. The only thing left is to bomb bomb bomb.

So no disrespect, you can come up with a whole bunch of mental gymnastics as you want, but the fact is I am and the overwhelming majority of intelligent/sane people are going to side with the female scientist who’s spent her whole career studying these type of cordyceps fungal disease
 
Top