When Jeff Gerstmann was fired from GameSpot, a Blog Post by Rich Gallup recalled a time when Jeff, frazzled from working hard during GameSpot's customarily intense E3 coverage, had accidentally misstated his own name as "Jeff GameSpot." It was in reality a simple slip of the tongue for "Jeff Gerstmann from GameSpot," but as Rich pointed out at the time, it was also symbolic of just how inexorably linked Jeff Gerstmann and GameSpot were. For me, the quintessential example was Jeff calling in to On the Spot using Xbox Live Video Chat to demonstrate it on his week off.

And then all of a sudden, he was just gone. I remember sitting in the canteen at work on a lunchbreak in my first job, reflecting on how this crazy sequence of events had suddenly played out and how this huge part of my childhood and adolescence was just gone in an instant. "GameSpot," Jeff had recently told us while trying to make up for the ESA's then-current efforts to destroy E3, "is still crazy." And then all of a sudden, it wasn't.

But before long, there was some hope. Jeff Gerstmann, it seemed, was still a threat. Soon joined by the beloved (and now sorely missed) Ryan Davis, we had Arrow Pointing down before we knew it. And shortly thereafter, the proto-Giant Bomb - a WordPress Blog - was born. I vividly remember sitting in the Giant Bomb Justin.tv Chat on the day the true site was to go live, as we waited for the real Giant Bomb to begin. Chatting about Batman (specifically The Dark Knight) and what user names we would take in this exciting new venture.

From thee, it was a wild ride. I spent years in the Giant Bomb Unofficial IRC Channel. I joined Matt Bodega, Tokyo Chicken and Disgaeamad to produce the Officially Unofficial Giant Bomb Community Podcast, Bomb Should Have A Face. We had the pleasure of having Jeff, Brad & Dave Snider join us on there. I remain incredibly grateful for their time and cherish even that brief opportunity to talk to these guys who had such an impact on my life.

In the years since, there have been ups and downs. Whether it was my interest in games peaking and troughing or things like the departures of great contributors like Dan or Patrick, or more recently Alex, Vinny & Brad, the loss of Ryan...It hasn't always been smooth sailing, but Giant Bomb was always there. Jeff Gerstmann was always there.

Even in the midst of three of the core five staff members leaving at once, I could always take solace in the fact Jeff Gerstmann was still here, Giant Bomb was still crazy and as long as that was the case...Giant Bomb was still a threat.

Jeff Giant Bomb was still a threat.

Because while Giant Bomb may always have been more than "just" Jeff...In every meaningful sense, Jeff Gerstmann is Giant Bomb. Especially as Ryan Davis is sadly no longer with us. To reduce the loss to Giant Bomb of Jeff Gerstmann to "just another cast change" as the unsigned news post hastily announcing (and then glossing over) his departure does is to fundamentally and completely misunderstand what Giant Bomb is, who Jeff Gerstmann is and the 14 years of history behind this site.

Even more than "Jeff GameSpot" was inexorably linked to GameSpot, "Jeff Giant Bomb" is inseparable from what makes Giant Bomb...Giant Bomb. It's Jeff Gersmtann, it always has been. He's been the heart and soul of the whole thing throughout - not always alone, but definitely continuously. To have him here one day and gone the next with just this soulless press release style blog post?

It's clearly wrong. So "Giant Bomb" may persist. And I wish no ill will to the remaining core staff, who I like. But this isn't really Giant Bomb any more. And to make this change in this way is disrespectful and offensive not just to Jeff, but to the audience who helped make this site what it is under his leadership.

And so, after all this time...

Duder, it's over.

Here there be spoilers. You have been warned.

Like many of you, I recently picked up The Last of Us Remastered. I didn't play it on PS3, and I steered clear of any spoilers, so I didn't know a whole lot about what goes on, beyond the very basic Joel/Ellie dynamic.

If you played it on either PS3 or PS4 through to the end, you'll know it has a very dramatic conclusion. Joel ultimately takes Ellie away from the Fireflies, destroying their chances of finding a cure. He then baldly lies about the circumstances to Ellie.

Many people disagreed with his actions, saying they only begrudgingly participated and consider him wrong, even a monster. Many others disagreed, but understood and accepted his choice, whether they saw it as morally grey or outright wrong - albeit justified. I fall into a third camp. I completely agreed with every decision Joel made. He was right to rescue Ellie, he was right to kill the Fireflies - including the doctors (I killed them all, with my only hesitation being a moment to think the game would consider this the wrong action even though I thought otherwise) - and he was right to end Marlene too. And the lie to Ellie was also entirely justified.

You see, the Fireflies, for all the efforts to portray them as morally grey in pursuit of a righteous solution, are unspeakably and irredeemably immoral. While it's true that Joel, like them, did not seek Ellie's input on whether or not it would be fair to sacrifice her for a cure, his decision was to spare her life. Theirs was to take it. Theirs was the thievery. They not only made no attempt to seek informed, rational consent (and, for reasons we'll get into, even if they had it would have been dubious) before rushing her off to die in pursuit of medical research they had no way of knowing would work (Naughty Dog's word of god that it would have is irrelevant: the Fireflies didn't know that, so everything they were doing was in reckless pursuit of an uncertainty), they did the whole thing while she was unconscious. And they knowingly kept it from someone who would have sought to protect her.

Marlene is by far the worst of them. She flagrantly abused her position as a surrogate mother to Ellie in order to fortify her crumbling standing among the Fireflies. It's not merely that she greenlit the procedure, it's that she failed to even try to speak to Ellie about it, and only spoke about it to Joel reluctantly - and with muscle to intimidate and remove him. She apparently held them off from killing him in his sleep because she felt he was the only one who knew the gravity of her decision, but that's just more evidence of her selfishness in this regard. Her betrayal of Ellie is all the more wretched because she claims to have equal or greater affection for her to/than Joel. She says Ellie would have agreed, and it is implied Joel thinks so too. So what? Why then did she not ask? Why make the decision for her? And what kind of person sacrifices a child they claim affection for, a child apparently in their care, so callously?

All the Fireflies are among the more evil people in The Last of Us. The vast majority of the Hunters are absolute scumbags, but only in as much as a thirst for survival drove them there (David and his merry band of cannibals, but him especially, are the absolute nadir of the Hunters and probably about as bad as the Fireflies, but most of the Hunters in the game are far more combat pragmatic than evil). The Fireflies and their mad doctor achieve this level of unspeakable immorality because of their undeserved belief in the righteousness of their actions. The Hunters are at least honest enough to acknowledge, for the most part, their savagery and their rationalisation is somewhat reasonable. The Fireflies have the gall to believe their killing of Ellie, their terrorism, their murders...are noble and just.

And maybe you're sat there fuming at me for implying that their aim is insufficient justification for their means, since you might argue they seek to save mankind.

Perhaps you think I am about to argue that mankind in The Last of Us doesn't deserve saving, or at least not enough to justify Ellie's sacrifice. Many have argued the same in the discussions I've read since finishing the game.

You're wrong. I'm not making that argument, because it's irrelevant. I kind of agree, but not enough to dismiss the idea of a cure outright as many have. No, my objection is more straightforward:

Mankind does NOT need saving in The Last of Us. Ellie's sacrifice would have been pointless. There is nothing to save mankind FROM.

It was a feeling I first had when Joel and Ellie met up with Joel's brother Tommy. The Jackson community is a fully-functioning society. Safe. Secure. Civil. The infection is an outside threat - periphery and manageable. Tommy offers them a chance to stay. While I saw the logic in his idea, I initially agreed with Joel that pursuing the cure was worth it - after all, we could always come back with Ellie when it was all over and make a life for ourselves (as seems to be happening in the epilogue). The thing is, like Joel, I was at the time working under the assumption that Ellie simply needed to get to the Fireflies so they could take samples or study her or something. It hadn't crossed my mind their "cure" would be "kill Ellie and study the brain". Incidentally, they're after her BRAIN? That raises the question of who're the real zombies: the infected or the damn Fireflies?

You see, heading off to assist in researching a cure for a disease, that's just a noble pursuit in a pretty crapsacky world. Escorting a girl to her death to cure a disease is another thing altogether. I can see an argument for it (though I'd still have misgivings) to save mankind, but again...That's not what was going on.

The disease had twenty years to wipe humans out, and it didn't. Joel survived. Tess survived until she took one too many risks. They talk about it as being luck, but it's not. Everyone we saw get infected after the time skip was taking a risk when they did. They put themselves in situations where infection was more likely. Ish's community was doing fine in the sewers until someone was careless and failed to shut the door. The same thing happens in Left Behind. If Riley hadn't been inexcusably reckless for someone who grew up in that world, she and Ellie would have been fine.

Then there's Jackson. Safe. Secure. Civil. Infection-free. The quarantine Zones are cesspits of crime and loose morals, generally portrayed as horrible places to live, and this is blamed on the infection. But it's not the infection. It's the people. More specifically, the leadership. They're military dictatorships. All military dictatorships are awful. It doesn't matter why they were implemented, martial law is an awful way to live.

But then...there's Jackson. Jackson proves the dictatorship is unnecessary to survive the infection. In fact, Jackson is flourishing. It is, by every conceivable measure, a better and more functional society. Quality of life may not be quite back to pre-infection levels, but it's high. They have amenities, companionship, pets, safety, power, food...

They restored civilisation without a cure. Mankind re-asserting its civility and social advancement even with the infection still out there. Life, and humanity, found a way. There was no need for a cure. Certainly not enough need to justify Ellie losing her life in pursuit of the mere chance of one. A cure would be nice, but "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" does not mean "for some to live longer, others must die".

Had Ellie chosen a noble sacrifice for a cure anyway, then so be it, but that didn't happen. She was given no choice, and that act damned the Fireflies as unworthy of pursuing a cure. They did not deserve it. And the people of Jackson, who might have, did not need it. Marlene's justification that Ellie would have agreed is pathetic. Not because it's unlikely, but because it's definitely true. Ellie would have agreed. But it would not have been a noble sacrifice. It would have been out of survivor's guilt and a desire to end her sorrow over the path she was forced (though she is unlikely to have admitted as much to herself) to lead by Marlene.

Now, as for the lie, at least one of the creators has suggested Ellie knows Joel is lying and resents him for it, even though she still loves him as a father. From what I understand, this is not canon and the conclusion is deliberately ambiguous. I said above I don't disagree with the lie. And the reason plays again into Ellie's mental state. Right or wrong of the lie goes out the window when you consider that Ellie is not going to see the events objectively, or even from a rational subjective viewpoint. She makes it clear in that scene that her view is blurred by regret and sorrow. Joel opts to protect her from more of that by absorbing it himself. Some say it is ultimately selfish of him to choose to keep her in his life and lie to keep her from shunning him (which undoubtedly played in to his decision), but to that I say...Is it any less selfish of Ellie to expect Joel to watch her sacrifice herself or take on a burden he can protect her from after all he's been through - after Sarah?

The Last of Us is ultimately a story about people having to look out for them and theirs. To my mind, nobody is a saint - not even Ellie. What sets our heroes (Ultimately, the Jackson citizenry including Joel and Ellie) apart is that they choose to make things happen for themselves, to sacrifice themselves for those around them and to attack only as a means of survival. The villains seek to coerce, manipulate or force others into sacrificing themselves for them (the villains) or "the greater good". The Fireflies, and the Cannibals, each did this in their own ways. Joel, Ellie, Tommy and his settlement...They took on burdens and confronted danger themselves.

Saints? No. Survivors? Yes. There is no need for a cure.

Here there be spoilers. You have been warned.

Like many of you, I recently picked up The Last of Us Remastered. I didn't play it on PS3, and I steered clear of any spoilers, so I didn't know a whole lot about what goes on, beyond the very basic Joel/Ellie dynamic.

If you played it on either PS3 or PS4 through to the end, you'll know it has a very dramatic conclusion. Joel ultimately takes Ellie away from the Fireflies, destroying their chances of finding a cure. He then baldly lies about the circumstances to Ellie.

Many people disagreed with his actions, saying they only begrudgingly participated and consider him wrong, even a monster. Many others disagreed, but understood and accepted his choice, whether they saw it as morally grey or outright wrong - albeit justified. I fall into a third camp. I completely agreed with every decision Joel made. He was right to rescue Ellie, he was right to kill the Fireflies - including the doctors (I killed them all, with my only hesitation being a moment to think the game would consider this the wrong action even though I thought otherwise) - and he was right to end Marlene too. And the lie to Ellie was also entirely justified.

You see, the Fireflies, for all the efforts to portray them as morally grey in pursuit of a righteous solution, are unspeakably and irredeemably immoral. While it's true that Joel, like them, did not seek Ellie's input on whether or not it would be fair to sacrifice her for a cure, his decision was to spare her life. Theirs was to take it. Theirs was the thievery. They not only made no attempt to seek informed, rational consent (and, for reasons we'll get into, even if they had it would have been dubious) before rushing her off to die in pursuit of medical research they had no way of knowing would work (Naughty Dog's word of god that it would have is irrelevant: the Fireflies didn't know that, so everything they were doing was in reckless pursuit of an uncertainty), they did the whole thing while she was unconscious. And they knowingly kept it from someone who would have sought to protect her.

Marlene is by far the worst of them. She flagrantly abused her position as a surrogate mother to Ellie in order to fortify her crumbling standing among the Fireflies. It's not merely that she greenlit the procedure, it's that she failed to even try to speak to Ellie about it, and only spoke about it to Joel reluctantly - and with muscle to intimidate and remove him. She apparently held them off from killing him in his sleep because she felt he was the only one who knew the gravity of her decision, but that's just more evidence of her selfishness in this regard. Her betrayal of Ellie is all the more wretched because she claims to have equal or greater affection for her to/than Joel. She says Ellie would have agreed, and it is implied Joel thinks so too. So what? Why then did she not ask? Why make the decision for her? And what kind of person sacrifices a child they claim affection for, a child apparently in their care, so callously?

A monstrous one, that's who.

All the Fireflies are among the more evil people in The Last of Us. The vast majority of the Hunters are absolute scumbags, but only in as much as a thirst for survival drove them there (David and his merry band of cannibals, but him especially, are the absolute nadir of the Hunters and probably about as bad as the Fireflies, but most of the Hunters in the game are far more combat pragmatic than evil). The Fireflies and their mad doctor achieve this level of unspeakable immorality because of their undeserved belief in the righteousness of their actions. The Hunters are at least honest enough to acknowledge, for the most part, their savagery and their rationalisation is somewhat reasonable. The Fireflies have the gall to believe their killing of Ellie, their terrorism, their murders...are noble and just.

And maybe you're sat there fuming at me for implying that their aim is insufficient justification for their means, since you might arguing they seek to save mankind.

Perhaps you think I am about to argue that mankind in The Last of Us doesn't deserve saving, or at least not enough to justify Ellie's sacrifice. Many have argued the same in the discussions I've read since finishing the game.

You're wrong. I'm not making that argument, because it's irrelevant. I kind of agree, but not enough to dismiss the idea of a cure outright as many have. No, my objection is more straightforward:

Mankind does NOT need saving in The Last of Us. Ellie's sacrifice would have been pointless. There is nothing to save mankind FROM.

It was a feeling I first had when Joel and Ellie met up with Joel's brother Tommy. The Jackson community is a fully-functioning society. Safe. Secure. Civil. The infection is an outside threat - periphery and manageable. Tommy offers them a chance to stay. While I saw the logic in his idea, I initially agreed with Joel that pursuing the cure was worth it - after all, we could always come back with Ellie when it was all over and make a life for ourselves (as seems to be happening in the epilogue). The thing is, like Joel, I was at the time working under the assumption that Ellie simply needed to get to the Fireflies so they could take samples or study her or something. It hadn't crossed my mind their "cure" would be "kill Ellie and study the brain". Incidentally, they're after her BRAIN? That raises the question of who're the real zombies: the infected or the damn Fireflies?

You see, heading off to assist in researching a cure for a disease, that's just a noble pursuit in a pretty crapsacky world. Escorting a girl to her death to cure a disease is another thing altogether. I can see an argument for it (though I'd still have misgivings) to save mankind, but again...That's not what was going on.

The disease had twenty years to wipe humans out, and it didn't. Joel survived. Tess survived until she took one too many risks. They talk about it as being luck, but it's not. Everyone we saw get infected after the time skip was taking a risk when they did. They put themselves in situations where infection was more likely. Ish's community was doing fine in the sewers until someone was careless and failed to shut the door. The same thing happens in Left Behind. If Riley hadn't been inexcusably reckless for someone who grew up in that world, she and Ellie would have been fine.

Then there's Jackson. Safe. Secure. Civil. Infection-free. The quarantine Zones are cesspits of crime and loose morals, generally portrayed as horrible places to live, and this is blamed on the infection. But it's not the infection. It's the people. More specifically, the leadership. They're military dictatorships. All military dictatorships are awful. It doesn't matter why they were implemented, martial law is an awful way to live.

But then there's Jackson. Jackson proves the dictatorship is unnecessary to survive the infection. In fact, Jackson is flourishing. It is, by every conceivable measure, a better and more functional society. Quality of life may not be quite back to pre-infection levels, but it's high. They have amenities, companionship, pets, safety, power, food...

They restored civilisation without a cure. Mankind re-asserting its civility and social advancement even with the infection still out there. Life, and humanity, found a way. There was no need for a cure. Certainly not enough need to justify Ellie losing her life in pursuit of the mere chance of one. A cure would be nice, but "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" does not mean "for some to live longer, others must die".

Had Ellie chosen a noble sacrifice for a cure anyway, then so be it, but that didn't happen. She was given no choice, and that act damned the Fireflies as unworthy of pursuing a cure. They did not deserve it. And the people of Jackson, who might have, did not need it. Marlene's justification that Ellie would have agreed is pathetic. Not because it's unlikely, but because it's definitely true. Ellie would have agreed. But it would not have been a noble sacrifice. It would have been out of survivor's guilt and a desire to end her sorrow over the path she was forced (though she is unlikely to have admitted as much to herself) to lead by Marlene.

Now, as for the lie, at least one of the creators has suggested Ellie knows Joel is lying and resents him for it, even though she still loves him as a father. From what I understand, this is not canon and the conclusion is deliberately ambiguous. I said above I don't disagree with the lie. And the reason plays again into Ellie's mental state. Right or wrong of the lie goes out the window when you consider that Ellie is not going to see the events objectively, or even from a rational subjective viewpoint. She makes it clear in that scene that her view is blurred by regret and sorrow. Joel opts to protect her from more of that by absorbing it himself. Some say it is ultimately selfish of him to choose to keep her in his life and lie to keep her from shunning him (which undoubtedly played in to his decision), but to that I say...Is it any less selfish of Ellie to expect Joel to watch her sacrifice herself or take on a burden he can protect her from after all he's been through - after Sarah?

The Last of Us is ultimately a story about people having to look out for them and theirs. To my mind, nobody is a saint - not even Ellie. What sets our heroes (Ultimately, the Jackson citizenry including Joel and Ellie) apart is that they choose to make things happen for themselves, to sacrifice themselves for those around them and to attack only as a means of survival. The villains seek to coerce, manipulate or force others into sacrificing themselves for them (the villains) or "the greater good". The Fireflies, and the Cannibals, each did this in their own ways. Joel, Ellie, Tommy and his settlement...They took on burdens and confronted danger themselves.

Saints? No. Survivors? Yes. There is no need for a cure.

Here there be spoilers. You have been warned.

Like many of you, I recently picked up The Last of Us Remastered. I didn't play it on PS3, and I steered clear of any spoilers, so I didn't know a whole lot about what goes on, beyond the very basic Joel/Ellie dynamic.

If you played it on either PS3 or PS4 through to the end, you'll know it has a very dramatic conclusion. Joel ultimately takes Ellie away from the Fireflies, destroying their chances of finding a cure. He then baldly lies about the circumstances to Ellie.

Many people disagreed with his actions, saying they only begrudgingly participated and consider him wrong, even a monster. Many others disagreed, but understood and accepted his choice, whether they saw it as morally grey or outright wrong - albeit justified. I fall into a third camp. I completely agreed with every decision Joel made. He was right to rescue Ellie, he was right to kill the Fireflies - including the doctors - and he was right to end Marlene too. And the lie to Ellie was also entirely justified.

You see, the Fireflies, for all the efforts to portray them as morally grey in pursuit of a righteous solution, are unspeakably and irredeemably immoral. While it's true that Joel, like them, did not seek Ellie's input on whether or not it would be fair to sacrifice her for a cure, his decision was to spare her life. Theirs was to take it. Theirs was the thievery. They not only made no attempt to seek informed, rational consent (and for reasons we'll get into,,even if they had it would have been dubious) before rushing her off to die in pursuit of medical research they had no way of knowing would work (Naughty Dog's word of god that it would have is irrelevant: the Fireflies didn't know that, so everything they were doing was in reckless pursuit of an uncertainty), they did the whole thing while she was unconscious. And they knowingly kept it from someone who would have sought to protect her.

Marlene is by far the worst of them. She flagrantly abused her position as a surrogate mother to Ellie in order to fortify her crumbling standing among the Fireflies. It's not merely that she greenlit the procedure, it's that she failed to even try to speak to Ellie about it, and only spoke about it to Joel reluctantly - and with muscle to intimidate and remove him. She apparently held them off from killing him in his sleep because she felt he was the only one who knew the gravity of her decision, but that's just more evidence of her selfishness in this regard. Her betrayal of Ellie is all the more wretched because she claims to have equal or greater affection for her to/than Joel. She says Ellie would have agreed, and it is implied Joel thinks so too. So what? Why then did she not ask? Why make the decision for her? And what kind of person sacrifices a child they claim affection for, a child apparently in their care so callously?

A monstrous one, that's who.

All the Fireflies are among the more evil people in The Last of Us. The vast majority of the Hunters are absolute scumbags, but only in as much as a thirst for survival drove them there (David and his merry band of cannibals, but him especially, are the absolute nadir of the Hunters and probably about as bad as the Fireflies, but most of the Hunters in the game are far more combat pragmatic than evil). The Fireflies and their mad doctor leader achieve this level of unspeakable immorality because of their undeserved belief in the righteousness of their actions. The Hunters are at least honest enough to acknowledge, for the most part, their savagery and their rationalisation is somewhat reasonable. The Fireflies have the gall to believe their killing of Ellie, their terrorism, their murders are noble and just.

And maybe you're sat there fuming at me for implying that their aim is insufficient justification for their means, since you might arguing they seek to save mankind.

Perhaps you think I am about to argue that mankind in The Last of Us doesn't deserve saving, or at least not enough to justify Ellie's sacrifice. Many have argued the same in the discussions I've read since finishing the game.

You're wrong. I'm not making that argument, because it's irrelevant. I kind of agree, but not enough to dismiss the idea of a cure outright as many have. No, my objection is more straightforward:

Mankind does NOT need saving in The Last of Us. Ellie's sacrifice would have been pointless. There is nothing to save mankind FROM.

It was a feeling I first had when Joel and Ellie met up with Joel's brother Tommy. The Jackson community is a fully-functioning society. Safe. Secure. Civil. The infection is an outside threat - periphery and manageable. Tommy offers them a chance to stay. While I saw the logic in his idea, I initially agreed with Joel that pursuing the cure was worth it - after all, we could always come back with Ellie when it was all over and make a life for ourselves (as seems to be happening in the epilogue). The thing is, like Joel, I was at the time working under the assumption that Ellie simply needed to get to the Fireflies so they could take samples or study her or something. It hadn't crossed my mind their "cure" would be "kill Ellie and study the brain". Incidentally, that raises the question of who're the real zombies: the infected or the damn Fireflies?

You see, heading off to assist in researching a cure for a disease, that's just a noble pursuit in a pretty crapsacky world. Escorting a girl to her death to cure a disease is another thing altogether. I can see an argument for it (though I'd still have misgivings) to save mankind, but again...That's not what was going on.

The disease had twenty years to wipe humans out, and it didn't. Joel survived. Tess survived until she took one too many risks. They talk about it as being luck, but it's not. Everyone we saw get infected after the time skip was taking a risk when they did. They put themselves in situations where infection was more likely. The same thing happens in Left Behind. If Riley hadn't been inexcusably reckless for someone who grew up in that world, she and Ellie would have been fine.

Then there's Jackson. Safe. Secure. Civil. Infection-free. The quarantine Zones are cesspits of crime and loose morals, generally portrayed as horrible places to live, and this is blamed on the infection. But it's not the infection. It's the people. More specifically, the leadership. They're military dictatorships. All military dictatorships are awful. It doesn't matter why they were implemented, martial law is an awful way to live.

But then there's Jackson. Jackson proves the dictatorship is unnecessary to survive the infection. In fact, Jackson is flourishing. It is, by every conceivable measure, a better and more functional society. Quality of life may not be quite back to pre-infection levels, but it's high. They have amenities, companionship, pets, safety, power, food...

They restored civilisation without a cure. Mankind re-asserting its civility and social advancement even with the infection still out there. Life, and humanity, found a way. There was no need for a cure. Certainly. To enough need to justify Ellie losing her life in pursuit of the mere chance of one. A cure would be nice, but "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" does not mean "for many to live longer some must die".

Had Ellie chosen a noble sacrifice for a cure anyway, then so be it, but that didn't happen. She was given no choice, and that act damned the Fireflies as unworthy of pursuing a cure. They did not deserve it. And the people of Jackson, who might have, did not need it. Marlene's justification that Ellie would have agreed is pathetic. Not because it's unlikely, but because it's definitely true. Ellie would have agreed. But it would not have been a noble sacrifice. It would have been out of survivor's guilt and a desire to end her sorrow over the path she was forced (though she is unlikely to have admitted as much to herself) to lead by Marlene.

Now, as for the lie, at least one of the creators has suggested Ellie knows Joel is lying and resents him for it, even though she still loves him as a father. From what I understand, this is not canon and the conclusion is deliberately ambiguous. I said above I don't disagree with the lie. And the reason plays again into Ellie's mental state. Right or wrong of the lie goes out the window when you consider that Ellie is not going to see the events objectively, or even from a rational subjective viewpoint. She makes it clear in that scene her view is blurred by regret and sorrow. Joel opts to protect her from more of that by absorbing it himself. Some say it is ultimately selfish of him to choose to keep her in his life and lie to keep her from shunning him (which undoubtedly played I to his decision), but to that I say...Is it any less elvish of Ellie to expect Joel to watch her sacrifice herself or take on a burden he can protect her from after all he's been through - after Sarah?

The Last of Us is ultimately a story about people having to look out for them and theirs and damn everyone else. To my mind, nobody is a saint - not even Ellie. What sets our heroes (Ultimately, the Jackson citizenry including Joel and Ellie) is that they choose to make things happen for themselves, to sacrifice themselves for those around them and to attack only as a means of survival. The villains seek to coerce, manipulate or force others into sacrificing themselves for them (the villains) or "the greater good". The Fireflies, and the Cannibals, each did this in their own ways. Joel, Ellie, Tommy and his settlement...They took on burdens and confronted danger themselves.

Saints? No. Survivors? Yes. There is no need for a cure.

Here there be spoilers. You have been warned.

Like many of you, I recently picked up The Last of Us Remastered. I didn't play it on PS3, and I steered clear of any spoilers, so I didn't know a whole lot about what goes on, beyond the very basic Joel/Ellie dynamic.

If you played it on either PS3 or PS4 through to the end, you'll know it has a very dramatic conclusion. Joel ultimately takes Ellie away from the Fireflies, destroying their chances of finding a cure. He then baldly lies about the circumstances to Ellie.

Many people disagreed with his actions, saying they only begrudgingly participated and consider him wrong, even a monster. Many others disagreed, but understood and accepted his choice, whether they saw it as morally grey or outright wrong - albeit justified. I fall into a third camp. I completely agreed with every decision Joel made. He was right to rescue Ellie, he was right to kill the Fireflies - including the doctors - and he was right to end Marlene too. And the lie to Ellie was also entirely justified.

You see, the Fireflies, for all the efforts to portray them as morally grey in pursuit of a righteous solution, are unspeakably and irredeemably immoral. While it's true that Joel, like them, did not seek Ellie's input on whether or not it would be fair to sacrifice her for a cure, his decision was to spare her life. Theirs was to take it. Theirs was the thievery. They not only made no attempt to seek informed, rational consent (and for reasons we'll get into,,even if they had it would have been dubious) before rushing her off to die in pursuit of medical research they had no way of knowing would work (Naughty Dog's word of god that it would have is irrelevant: the Fireflies didn't know that, so everything they were doing was in reckless pursuit of an uncertainty), they did the whole thing while she was unconscious. And they knowingly kept it from someone who would have sought to protect her.

Marlene is by far the worst of them. She flagrantly abused her position as a surrogate mother to Ellie in order to fortify her crumbling standing among the Fireflies. It's not merely that she greenlit the procedure, it's that she failed to even try to speak to Ellie about it, and only spoke about it to Joel reluctantly - and with muscle to intimidate and remove him. She apparently held them off from killing him in his sleep because she felt he was the only one who knew the gravity of her decision, but that's just more evidence of her selfishness in this regard. Her betrayal of Ellie is all the more wretched because she claims to have equal or greater affection for her to/than Joel. She says Ellie would have agreed, and it is implied Joel thinks so too. So what? Why then did she not ask? Why make the decision for her? And what kind of person sacrifices a child they claim affection for, a child apparently in their care so callously?

A monstrous one, that's who.

All the Fireflies are among the more evil people in The Last of Us. The vast majority of the Hunters are absolute scumbags, but only in as much as a thirst for survival drove them there (David and his merry band of cannibals, but him especially, are the absolute nadir of the Hunters and probably about as bad as the Fireflies, but most of the Hunters in the game are far more combat pragmatic than evil). The Fireflies and their mad doctor leader achieve this level of unspeakable immorality because of their undeserved belief in the righteousness of their actions. The Hunters are at least honest enough to acknowledge, for the most part, their savagery and their rationalisation is somewhat reasonable. The Fireflies have the gall to believe their killing of Ellie, their terrorism, their murders are noble and just.

And maybe you're sat there fuming at me for implying that their aim is insufficient justification for their means, since you might arguing they seek to save mankind.

Perhaps you think I am about to argue that mankind in The Last of Us doesn't deserve saving, or at least not enough to justify Ellie's sacrifice. Many have argued the same in the discussions I've read since finishing the game.

You're wrong. I'm not making that argument, because it's irrelevant. I kind of agree, but not enough to dismiss the idea of a cure outright as many have. No, my objection is more straightforward:

Mankind does NOT need saving in The Last of Us. Ellie's sacrifice would have been pointless. There is nothing to save mankind FROM.

It was a feeling I first had when Joel and Ellie met up with Joel's brother Tommy. The Jackson community is a fully-functioning society. Safe. Secure. Civil. The infection is an outside threat - periphery and manageable. Tommy offers them a chance to stay. While I saw the logic in his idea, I initially agreed with Joel that pursuing the cure was worth it - after all, we could always come back with Ellie when it was all over and make a life for ourselves (as seems to be happening in the epilogue). The thing is, like Joel, I was at the time working under the assumption that Ellie simply needed to get to the Fireflies so they could take samples or study her or something. It hadn't crossed my mind their "cure" would be "kill Ellie and study the brain". Incidentally, that raises the question of who're the real zombies: the infected or the damn Fireflies?

You see, heading off to assist in researching a cure for a disease, that's just a noble pursuit in a pretty crapsacky world. Escorting a girl to her death to cure a disease is another thing altogether. I can see an argument for it (though I'd still have misgivings) to save mankind, but again...That's not what was going on.

The disease had twenty years to wipe humans out, and it didn't. Joel survived. Tess survived until she took one too many risks. They talk about it as being luck, but it's not. Everyone we saw get infected after the time skip was taking a risk when they did. They put themselves in situations where infection was more likely. The same thing happens in Left Behind. If Riley hadn't been inexcusably reckless for someone who grew up in that world, she and Ellie would have been fine.

Then there's Jackson. Safe. Secure. Civil. Infection-free. The quarantine Zones are cesspits of crime and loose morals, generally portrayed as horrible places to live, and this is blamed on the infection. But it's not the infection. It's the people. More specifically, the leadership. They're military dictatorships. All military dictatorships are awful. It doesn't matter why they were implemented, martial law is an awful way to live.

But then there's Jackson. Jackson proves the dictatorship is unnecessary to survive the infection. In fact, Jackson is flourishing. It is, by every conceivable measure, a better and more functional society. Quality of life may not be quite back to pre-infection levels, but it's high. They have amenities, companionship, pets, safety, power, food...

They restored civilisation without a cure. Mankind re-asserting its civility and social advancement even with the infection still out there. Life, and humanity, found a way. There was no need for a cure. Certainly. To enough need to justify Ellie losing her life in pursuit of the mere chance of one. A cure would be nice, but "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" does not mean "for many to live longer some must die".

Had Ellie chosen a noble sacrifice for a cure anyway, then so be it, but that didn't happen. She was given no choice, and that act damned the Fireflies as unworthy of pursuing a cure. They did not deserve it. And the people of Jackson, who might have, did not need it. Marlene's justification that Ellie would have agreed is pathetic. Not because it's unlikely, but because it's definitely true. Ellie would have agreed. But it would not have been a noble sacrifice. It would have been out of survivor's guilt and a desire to end her sorrow over the path she was forced (though she is unlikely to have admitted as much to herself) to lead by Marlene.

Now, as for the lie, at least one of the creators has suggested Ellie knows Joel is lying and resents him for it, even though she still loves him as a father. From what I understand, this is not canon and the conclusion is deliberately ambiguous. I said above I don't disagree with the lie. And the reason plays again into Ellie's mental state. Right or wrong of the lie goes out the window when you consider that Ellie is not going to see the events objectively, or even from a rational subjective viewpoint. She makes it clear in that scene her view is blurred by regret and sorrow. Joel opts to protect her from more of that by absorbing it himself. Some say it is ultimately selfish of him to choose to keep her in his life and lie to keep her from shunning him (which undoubtedly played I to his decision), but to that I say...Is it any less elvish of Ellie to expect Joel to watch her sacrifice herself or take on a burden he can protect her from after all he's been through - after Sarah?

The Last of Us is ultimately a story about people having to look out for them and theirs and damn everyone else. To my mind, nobody is a saint - not even Ellie. What sets our heroes (Ultimately, the Jackson citizenry including Joel and Ellie) is that they choose to make things happen for themselves, to sacrifice themselves for those around them and to attack only as a means of survival. The villains seek to coerce, manipulate or force others into sacrificing themselves for them (the villains) or "the greater good". The Fireflies, and the Cannibals, each did this in their own ways. Joel, Ellie, Tommy and his settlement...They took on burdens and confronted danger themselves.

Saints? No. Survivors? Yes. There is no need for a cure.

Here there be spoilers. You have been warned.

Like many of you, I recently picked up The Last of Us Remastered. I didn't play it on PS3, and I steered clear of any spoilers, so I didn't know a whole lot about what goes on, beyond the very basic Joel/Ellie dynamic.

If you played it on either PS3 or PS4 through to the end, you'll know it has a very dramatic conclusion. Joel ultimately takes Ellie away from the Fireflies, destroying their chances of finding a cure. He then baldly lies about the circumstances to Ellie.

Many people disagreed with his actions, saying they only begrudgingly participated and consider him wrong, even a monster. Many others disagreed, but understood and accepted his choice, whether they saw it as morally grey or outright wrong - albeit justified. I fall into a third camp. I completely agreed with every decision Joel made. He was right to rescue Ellie, he was right to kill the Fireflies - including the doctors - and he was right to end Marlene too. And the lie to Ellie was also entirely justified.

You see, the Fireflies, for all the efforts to portray them as morally grey in pursuit of a righteous solution, are unspeakably and irredeemably immoral. While it's true that Joel, like them, did not seek Ellie's input on whether or not it would be fair to sacrifice her for a cure, his decision was to spare her life. Theirs was to take it. Theirs was the thievery. They not only made no attempt to seek informed, rational consent (and for reasons we'll get into,,even if they had it would have been dubious) before rushing her off to die in pursuit of medical research they had no way of knowing would work (Naughty Dog's word of god that it would have is irrelevant: the Fireflies didn't know that, so everything they were doing was in reckless pursuit of an uncertainty), they did the whole thing while she was unconscious. And they knowingly kept it from someone who would have sought to protect her.

Marlene is by far the worst of them. She flagrantly abused her position as a surrogate mother to Ellie in order to fortify her crumbling standing among the Fireflies. It's not merely that she greenlit the procedure, it's that she failed to even try to speak to Ellie about it, and only spoke about it to Joel reluctantly - and with muscle to intimidate and remove him. She apparently held them off from killing him in his sleep because she felt he was the only one who knew the gravity of her decision, but that's just more evidence of her selfishness in this regard. Her betrayal of Ellie is all the more wretched because she claims to have equal or greater affection for her to/than Joel. She says Ellie would have agreed, and it is implied Joel thinks so too. So what? Why then did she not ask? Why make the decision for her? And what kind of person sacrifices a child they claim affection for, a child apparently in their care so callously?

A monstrous one, that's who.

All the Fireflies are among the more evil people in The Last of Us. The vast majority of the Hunters are absolute scumbags, but only in as much as a thirst for survival drove them there (David and his merry band of cannibals, but him especially, are the absolute nadir of the Hunters and probably about as bad as the Fireflies, but most of the Hunters in the game are far more combat pragmatic than evil). The Fireflies and their mad doctor leader achieve this level of unspeakable immorality because of their undeserved belief in the righteousness of their actions. The Hunters are at least honest enough to acknowledge, for the most part, their savagery and their rationalisation is somewhat reasonable. The Fireflies have the gall to believe their killing of Ellie, their terrorism, their murders are noble and just.

And maybe you're sat there fuming at me for implying that their aim is insufficient justification for their means, since you might arguing they seek to save mankind.

Perhaps you think I am about to argue that mankind in The Last of Us doesn't deserve saving, or at least not enough to justify Ellie's sacrifice. Many have argued the same in the discussions I've read since finishing the game.

You're wrong. I'm not making that argument, because it's irrelevant. I kind of agree, but not enough to dismiss the idea of a cure outright as many have. No, my objection is more straightforward:

Mankind does NOT need saving in The Last of Us. Ellie's sacrifice would have been pointless. There is nothing to save mankind FROM.

It was a feeling I first had when Joel and Ellie met up with Joel's brother Tommy. The Jackson community is a fully-functioning society. Safe. Secure. Civil. The infection is an outside threat - periphery and manageable. Tommy offers them a chance to stay. While I saw the logic in his idea, I initially agreed with Joel that pursuing the cure was worth it - after all, we could always come back with Ellie when it was all over and make a life for ourselves (as seems to be happening in the epilogue). The thing is, like Joel, I was at the time working under the assumption that Ellie simply needed to get to the Fireflies so they could take samples or study her or something. It hadn't crossed my mind their "cure" would be "kill Ellie and study the brain". Incidentally, that raises the question of who're the real zombies: the infected or the damn Fireflies?

You see, heading off to assist in researching a cure for a disease, that's just a noble pursuit in a pretty crapsacky world. Escorting a girl to her death to cure a disease is another thing altogether. I can see an argument for it (though I'd still have misgivings) to save mankind, but again...That's not what was going on.

The disease had twenty years to wipe humans out, and it didn't. Joel survived. Tess survived until she took one too many risks. They talk about it as being luck, but it's not. Everyone we saw get infected after the time skip was taking a risk when they did. They put themselves in situations where infection was more likely. The same thing happens in Left Behind. If Riley hadn't been inexcusably reckless for someone who grew up in that world, she and Ellie would have been fine.

Then there's Jackson. Safe. Secure. Civil. Infection-free. The quarantine Zones are cesspits of crime and loose morals, generally portrayed as horrible places to live, and this is blamed on the infection. But it's not the infection. It's the people. More specifically, the leadership. They're military dictatorships. All military dictatorships are awful. It doesn't matter why they were implemented, martial law is an awful way to live.

But then there's Jackson. Jackson proves the dictatorship is unnecessary to survive the infection. In fact, Jackson is flourishing. It is, by every conceivable measure, a better and more functional society. Quality of life may not be quite back to pre-infection levels, but it's high. They have amenities, companionship, pets, safety, power, food...

They restored civilisation without a cure. Mankind re-asserting its civility and social advancement even with the infection still out there. Life, and humanity, found a way. There was no need for a cure. Certainly. To enough need to justify Ellie losing her life in pursuit of the mere chance of one. A cure would be nice, but "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" does not mean "for many to live longer some must die".

Had Ellie chosen a noble sacrifice for a cure anyway, then so be it, but that didn't happen. She was given no choice, and that act damned the Fireflies as unworthy of pursuing a cure. They did not deserve it. And the people of Jackson, who might have, did not need it. Marlene's justification that Ellie would have agreed is pathetic. Not because it's unlikely, but because it's definitely true. Ellie would have agreed. But it would not have been a noble sacrifice. It would have been out of survivor's guilt and a desire to end her sorrow over the path she was forced (though she is unlikely to have admitted as much to herself) to lead by Marlene.

Now, as for the lie, at least one of the creators has suggested Ellie knows Joel is lying and resents him for it, even though she still loves him as a father. From what I understand, this is not canon and the conclusion is deliberately ambiguous. I said above I don't disagree with the lie. And the reason plays again into Ellie's mental state. Right or wrong of the lie goes out the window when you consider that Ellie is not going to see the events objectively, or even from a rational subjective viewpoint. She makes it clear in that scene her view is blurred by regret and sorrow. Joel opts to protect her from more of that by absorbing it himself. Some say it is ultimately selfish of him to choose to keep her in his life and lie to keep her from shunning him (which undoubtedly played I to his decision), but to that I say...Is it any less elvish of Ellie to expect Joel to watch her sacrifice herself or take on a burden he can protect her from after all he's been through - after Sarah?

The Last of Us is ultimately a story about people having to look out for them and theirs and damn everyone else. To my mind, nobody is a saint - not even Ellie. What sets our heroes (Ultimately, the Jackson citizenry including Joel and Ellie) is that they choose to make things happen for themselves, to sacrifice themselves for those around them and to attack only as a means of survival. The villains seek to coerce, manipulate or force others into sacrificing themselves for them (the villains) or "the greater good". The Fireflies, and the Cannibals, each did this in their own ways. Joel, Ellie, Tommy and his settlement...They took on burdens and confronted danger themselves.

Saints? No. Survivors? Yes. There is no need for a cure.

The Destiny Beta has drawn to a close. Throughout the adventure, I was regularly broadcasting my gameplay on my Twitch Channel and posting highlights to my YouTube Channel. The full playlist of Highlights is above, and below are a couple of my favourite individual videos.

First up, there's my first run in the beta through the Strike, Devil's Lair:

Next, a more bite-sized video of a rapid takedown of the Devil Walker from a Public Event a bit later in the Beta's run:

In the Beta, there were two variants of the competitive multiplayer "Crucible" available, both using the same game type (Control - "Capture & Defend, Guardians!"). Of the two, I preferred Iron Banner, the limited time only event where Level Advantages were enabled so your gear counted. It also granted access to two additional maps, both of which were far better than the First Light map which came as one of the two available in standard Crucible. Here's a quick match on Rusted Lands:

Little bit longer now, but still shorter than that Strike, here's the Mission on the Moon (The Dark Beyond) in standard difficulty. Along the way, we take out a Servitor as part of our first ever Moon-based Public Event. This was a fun adventure, with time limited access, and it teased us mercilessly with the gorgeous environment Bungie has created on the Moon:

And now, the feature presentation...After running through The Dark beyond on standard difficulty, we cranked it up to the Level 9 difficulty and went back in. But this time, partway through, I looked off down a road and wondered aloud what was at the other end. For the next our, we explored the moon, including getting semi-lost in the depths of the Hellmouth, deep below the surface of the moon, discovering giant enemies and terrifying doors and chains and hooks. It was incredible how much of the moon, way off the track of the mission path, was open to us and we crawled over as much of it as we could. Here is that adventure in its entirety:

This Destiny Beta video stuff was also a bit of a Beta test for me. This Twitch channel is new, replacing my old one which was actually a semi-converted Justin.tv channel and thus missing some important features. Now I've proved it works as I wanted, come the full release of Destiny, I'll be doing The Destiny Daily, a daily (or as near as possible) Destiny broadcast on Twitch, with archives on YouTube. Between times, I'll have some less structured video fun from the world of Destiny, and I'll post a weekly review of the best bits right here on my Giant Bomb Blog.

Before that, I'll be doing some broadcasts of the PS4 games I'm using to fill the insufferable 42.5 days left until Destiny drops (Including The Last of Us Remastered and Oddworld: Abe's Oddysey - New 'n' Tasty!). and looking ahead, I'll probably add a regular DRIVECLUB broadcast once Sony's new racer finally hits store shelves.

Paul "TVPaulD"/"Jensonb" Douglas and Tom "SteepInKline" Kline get together for the second LIVE video episode of the newly rebooted, ironically named pop culture show. This time, it's to pay tribute to the one and only Ryan Davis, who was stolen from the world a year ago.

All this drama has coincided with me going back to a question we once had an answer to, back in the very early days.

What if there was a place that gave Giant Bomb users a face and voice?

What if we took that old answer and updated it for the here and now?

I'm actively exploring this...So there may be more soon.