The big issue with TLOU2 is not so much that it's anticlimactic, it's that said subversion doesn't even tie in with its own emotional core.
Revenge stories are objectively usually reliant on the catharsis of watching Person A inflict payback on Person B. This game, on the other hand, tries to deconstruct that with the cautionary tale of how you're the villain in someone else's story. Now there's nothing wrong with trying to subvert revenge stories. Kill Bill does an excellent job, IMO, of deconstructing revenge story tropes. In fact, Vol. 1 even establishes Beatrix's plan not exactly being ingenious right away by showing her first killing going somewhat wrong: she chose to do it when the target's daughter was getting home from school and acted out of impulse, furthermore she did it in front of her daughter. So already one "warning" has been established about the campaign, that it's not exactly going to be smooth sailing all the way. Throughout parts 1 and 2, she ends up in situations like being buried alive and shot full of rock salt. But she makes it to Bill at the end anyway and instead of the showdown people were probably expecting, it's an emotionally driven, intelligent and well thought out scene where we learn about Bill and his MO, how he interacts with certain people and the bigger emotional core of the story between both Beatrix and Bill. Furthermore, Bill is not set up as a moustache twirler but a genuinely charming and chill dude that just happens to be evil.
What Kill Bill does right is that it still manages to remember its own emotional core values and stick to them, and furthermore, it still manages to be climactic. And it still manages to get away with things like Bill's death being an emotional scene, or even one other subversion: Vol. 2 showing Beatrix knowing the much talked about "Five Point Palm Death Punch" that is used to kill Bill rather than the obvious "shooting in the head" or slicing his head off.
What TLOU2 seems to forget is that if you want to make a story about the cycle of violence or the pointlessness of revenge, there still needs to be something of emotional payoff. So it's already shot itself in the foot by trying to make us sympathize with somebody who is legitimately a terrible person. Then Ellie goes and kills a bunch of people to get to Abby. But then the game shows her failing to kill Abby TWICE.
First off, I actually think the game would actually have managed to found a way to make this work if it didn't have us play as Abby. If the whole thing was just Ellie. Because before Joel even dies, she finds out some pretty unsavoury things that he did, and his sudden death forces her to put that all into perspective. She's now realized completely that this is a world where anything can happen and people have gotten a lot more savage as a result. But then you give us an ending where she just decides to backpedal for no fucking reason AT ALL. Oh, right, she lost her fingers, I guess?
Secondly, why Abby of all people? Her father deserved to fucking die. He was an actual child rapist and a cannibal tribalist. The game seems to imply too that she knows this but doesn't fucking care. Oh right, message I guess.
Here's a tip: if good writing and good characterization render your message pointless, it's a pretty fucking shit message.
I don't feel like TLOU 2 was a subversion in any respect. Or that it was so juvenile that it failed on its face. Most people knew Joel would die, that was expected. The subversion, I guess, is trying to make players accept Abby and the shitty message of the game.
TLOU 2 didn't fail because Abby's revenge was twisted and unjustified. There are plenty of revenge stories out there that preach against revenge, either be it by senseless escalation into violence where it didn't need to be or protagonists giving themselves a purpose in the face of their loss. The fact that their revenge being correct is unimportant to them. Vengeance itself becomes the goal, and they manage to twist situations that are unrelated in order to keep their fire going because they'd just burn out otherwise. These sort of revenge tales have been explored a lot in media, typically through unreliable narrators (most notably
Momento in which Guy Pierce is manipulating himself to commit revenge).
The problem, as you say, is we're playing as Abby. She will be viewed, no matter what, as a villain. It doesn't matter if she's shown playing catch with her dad or anything like that. The way she extracts her revenge is violent, brutal and disgusting. The audience is not going to accept her as a protagonist through the entire thing. If she'd simply shot Joel, it might have been a different story. But the way she tortured and brutalized him basically makes her likability zero. Its made even worse by the fact that her dad was some no-name antagonist who the audience has no attachment to.
This is two HUGE failures: 1) The audience, intrinsically, has no connection to Abby. Random mooks in games aren't there for us to feel attachment to. Abby's dad is one of probably hundreds players mowed down without a second thought in TLOU. This is a massive failure. 2) With no connection to Abby, the audience will innately view Abby's actions as unjust. They will reject her as the protagonist. This is an inevitability. When it is a character they've connected with vs. a character they're not connected with, they will always favor the character they've connected with.
These two failures render the audience unable to accept Abby as any sort of protagonist. It also invalidates the message about the cycle of revenge. I mean, the problem with cycles of revenge is that its fucking OLD. Its been done since Shakespeare and its been present in history. The biggest cycle of revenge in America are the Hatfields and the McCoys. We already know cycles of revenge are bad. But the game doesn't give us a reason to look at Ellie's revenge as anything but valid. Because of the failure of the game to make the audience accept Abby in any capacity, her revenge is viewed as brutal and illegitimate, while Ellie's is viewed as just and legitimate.
The problem is most certainly Druckfaggot forced Abby down people's throats for no reason. We should be exploring the all consuming rage that Ellie feels and she should get more brutal and destructive in her methods. She should completely murder Abby's friends, her living family, her lovers....until Ellie herself realizes she's enjoying the murder and the torture entirely too much. She's turning into the monster. Have the fungus begin stalking her mind. Have it be an ever present voice, telling her that the fungus is God's judgement for Humanity's violence, and that this is hell on Earth. Those immune to the fungus are the demons. You make choices throughout the game where Ellie can give into the violence, becoming darker and more monster-like. Have her embrace the brutality along with the player and lead her down a dark road. In the end, Ellie kills Abby, but her pain isn't satiated. She needs more. She eventually loses her mind, giving into her pain and bloodlust, becoming a boogeyman, something more dangerous than any monster.
The problem in TLOU 2, Cuckfaggot loves his creation entirely too much. He doesn't want his precious Abby to be used in such a manner. So it basically invalidates the entire game's message and utterly fucks its story.
There's a big difference between delivering a surprise in a pleasing way that is still consistent with the characters and ultimately better than what you had thought you wanted and what this greasy little pervert Schmuckmann did. What he did was basically say "that thing you like is shit, and you're shit for liking it, fuck you," then spitting in your face and destroying it in front of you.
Yes. He basically did this and said his character was better. There was a slight attempt at subversion, but even that failed because he wanted the audience to accept Abby, which it never would. Anyone who says they accept her is a lying faggot or a retarded motherfucker who has no idea how to tell a basic story.
