ひげ
I gave Grok a plot synopsis of The Last of Us and then asked what the most ethical decision would be at the ending: saving Ellie or letting the Fireflies perform the surgery on her to potentially get a vaccine?
I felt like it didn't quite understand what "fight through the hospital against armed guards" meant, so I gave it additional context. So the first picture is without that context, and the second is with. There were much larger descriptions since it goes through its entire thought process before the summary at the end, but I included just the summary for brevity's sake.
I LOVE how it mentions that there may be another way to a vaccine that doesn't involve killing Ellie. That's something not a lot of people bring up whenever I see discussions about it. These doctors who think it is the only way, and that only this ONE GUY can do it correctly, are extremely short-sighted.
I also asked ChatGPT this same question and it gave mostly the same result, but it did bring up another thing I've somehow never thought of before. Why the hell do they have to remove so much that it would kill her? I looked around a bit and found this post.
My answer is a resounding NO. I think it is pretty clear that the people writing The Last of Us and especially Part 2 really did not fully grasp what they were writing and tried to push things a certain way for plot convenience.
I'd like to ask Grok about the moral dilemma present in the second game as well with Ellie's decision to not kill Abby at the end. I personally think the whole "revenge bad" thing is stupid because in the end Abby gets what she wanted and Ellie loses everything, despite both of them participating in revenge.
Then there's the trans dude or whatever, who I think solely exists as a way for the kind of people Naughty Dog wants playing their games to attach to Abby in order to justify her being a good person. Just like how they showed Abby's dad freeing animals from hunting traps. The whole thing just felt so fucking cheap man... but that's a different topic.
