CT is easy to satisfy, and when he likes a game he'll put his college degree to work to explain why he likes it.
The Last of Us 2 - Two cowgirls murdering each other's loved ones
- Thread starter CT Phipps
- Start date
RangerBoo
Resident Schizo Poster
And why everyone else who disagrees is wrong. There is a saying that art is subjective.
Last edited:
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Honestly, I feel Ellie "losing everything" is overstated. Yes, she lost her relationship with Diana but I wasn't exactly overwhelmingly invested in that relationship to begin with. She still has Jackson and she still has her relationship with Tommy as well.
Personally, I think she's well set up to be the heroine of The Last of Us III as long as she can modify a gun to fire.
I like dark and desolate stories about rebuilding civilization in the wake of the apocalypse. Fallout 4 didn't have any of the desolation and felt like a bad attempt to redo New Vegas. I ultimately didn't like it nearly as much as Fallout 3 and I tried very hard to like Fallout 76 before the constant bugs, lack of NPCs, and stupidity of the plot broke me.
I'm a huge fan of Skyrim, Fallout 3, and generally LIKE Bethesda open world games. Which makes the failure all the more depressing. It's hard to share that, though, because people are like, "The games are equally shit because I never liked those kind of games to begin with." Which means if you actually think Bethesda has gotten worse, you just have to roll your eyes at people who can't see the difference.
Personally, I think she's well set up to be the heroine of The Last of Us III as long as she can modify a gun to fire.
I like dark and desolate stories about rebuilding civilization in the wake of the apocalypse. Fallout 4 didn't have any of the desolation and felt like a bad attempt to redo New Vegas. I ultimately didn't like it nearly as much as Fallout 3 and I tried very hard to like Fallout 76 before the constant bugs, lack of NPCs, and stupidity of the plot broke me.
I'm a huge fan of Skyrim, Fallout 3, and generally LIKE Bethesda open world games. Which makes the failure all the more depressing. It's hard to share that, though, because people are like, "The games are equally shit because I never liked those kind of games to begin with." Which means if you actually think Bethesda has gotten worse, you just have to roll your eyes at people who can't see the difference.
Didn't Ellie lose someone else close to her as well? Some important character from the first game or something. Eh, couldn't have been that important. Probably just a minor scene without any plot significance.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Oddly, Ellie apparently hadn't forgiven Joel until the day before he died. Like, she cared 5 years of hate for what he did to Marlene and the Fireflies.
That's cold, Ellie.
Lidku
Wasteland Sniper
Dark and Desolate? Fallout 3 was a cheesy nightmare. If you mean the environment itself, I'll give Fallout 3 that bone alone- but besides that, nowhere in the writing of Fallout 3 was it "dark and desolate." Also what rebuilding? There is practically none to speak of beyond the crappy main questline with the Purifier and it practically has zilch of an impact to the world (because literally- if you try to do an Evil ending where you poison the Purifier with the Enclave's virus, nobody cares and it doesn't do jack shit. It's like Bethesda put up the option for whatever reason, but neuters it so only doing the "Good" option is the levied "right way to end the story," again with Bethesda's tired strategies of illusion of choice).
I honestly can't fathom why you dislike Fallout 4, but somehow "like" Fallout 3 as if they aren't the same campfests. In both games you LITERALLY have the same wacky family dynastic crap as the main focus of both plotlines- only its "reversed" with the twist in 4 where your son is the sciency mysterious trope instead of how it was the "Dad" Liam Niesson character in 3.
And while we're at it, despite both games being garbage, I have to enunciate that Fallout 4 and by extension Bethesda trying to "redo" some aspects of NV is a plus, not a malus. The aspects of what was emulated is obvious- the multiple faction system.. beyond that however, all the factions prevalent in 4 are all lukewarm and dry to be honest. However atleast in this iteration they tried for some faction diversification and in 4 where you get to atleast CHOOSE which faction you wish to join like in NV- 3 you're combobulated into the Brotherhood of Steel whether you like it or not.
Besides this aspect, Fallout 4 removed more things than added to even have it considered to "redo" or to have emulated New Vegas.. or anything in the Fallout franchise before it for that matter- the removal of named unique weaponry instead for the craptastic "Legendary" system that makes 4 already more cartoon seeming that it already is, removal of weapon conditioning, removed the skill system, removed the dynamic text dialogue system for an atrocious voiced one with Elderly Home-tier amount of choice versing in- yes, yes, maybe, yes; the retcon of microfusion, energy, and electronic cells for the Fusion garbage, the atrocity of what power armor has become, the overall cartoon play-doh looking aesthetic graphical style, and the general constant oversights of many many things. So the point of you come up with that Fallout 4 tried to "redo" Fallout NV is a strange output because I saw nothing of that evidenced in that garbage bag of a game.
Last edited:
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
The short version is Fallout largely skips over the most important and interesting part of the apocalypse: the rebuilding. Fallout 3 is about you taking on the role of the Wasteland Messiah (if you choose) in order to stop the Raiders, Slavers, Enclave, Mutants, and other things in order to allow the Wasteland to live again. Fallout 1 and already by 2, the Wasteland is rebuilding on its own.
So why are you even needed?
Basically, you hate Fallout 3 and can't appreciate it so why should I bother explaining why Fallout 4 is a massively worse game? They're not the same, though. They don't have the same atmosphere, storytelling, urgency, or enjoyment. Frankly, were the Sole Survivor to never show up, the Commonwealth would be fine without him.
I played it but it just wasn't nearly as good and nowhere near as meaningful.
To save your vault in 1 via water chip and then eradicating the Master's Army as a threat?
Or to find a GECK to save your village from drought and crops dying? I doubt the villagers there can really trade with many other towns to feed themselves. And then later, save them after being kidnapped by a very powerful faction?
Stories don't have to center around sole improvements for a local society. So yes, Fallout 4's story about you finding Shawn is largely unimportant to many other people. So what? That's not a criticism of the story. That's just a fact of it.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
The Masters threat has nothing to do with rebuilding. He's just an Evil Overlord with an army of mutants. He feels more like Sauron suddenly entered mad max.
I *LIKE* Fallout 1, but I just feel like the world has gone on without you.
That's the second game and honestly if they have unsustainable land, maybe they should move.
No, it's just flat out not making good use of an apocalyptic setting. The setting feels like it's already rebuilt itself after the apocalypse and feels like the apocalypse is almost irrelevant to the storytelling. Mind you, Fallout 3 is basically just a retelling of Fallout 1 and 2 in a shooter context but it keeps the focus on the blasted irradiated wasteland elements.
The GECK is needed to rebuild Washington D.C. because Washington D.C. is a monstrous hellhole. It won't be restored until you find the GECK and help Project: Purity.
The urgency and importance of your work is told with every blasted out horrible ruin you encounter.
How? These people have been surviving without a river of radiation free water. The clean water won't prevent mutants or raiders or the Enclave. It won't solve any of those issues. You're purifying water that very few people seem to ever give a flying fuck about.
What? Yeah the Master just wants to kill everything because GRRAAAWWHWHARRHH!! You're totally right. Not only that, the point isn't that the Master's conflict with you isn't rebuilding. It's changing humans into an entirely different species that he can control to ensure peace among us. Stories don't have to be about rebuilding society in a post-apocalypse. Otherwise every post-apocalypse that doesn't mainly focus on rebuilding has wasted its potential. Which they haven't. It's a setting, with different rules than modern society. That's the point. It's a setting.
Lidku
Wasteland Sniper
The point is that everyone and their grandmother in this forum already know why Fallout 4 is crap, the thing I'm confused about is the bizzarity of how you believe 3's writing is any different from Fallout 4's at all. The other points?
I agree with this- the atmosphere difference of Fallout 3 and 4 is a leagues of difference away from one another. 3 had the "dark and desolate" feel to it (in environment only, not in other aspects) and a better graphical aesthetic. Fallout 4 looks like claymation garbage, it's a sin that it looks that ugly when its predecessor game Skyrim (because lets be truthful here, most of the assets they pilfered from Skyrim and mixed it up to a high degree so it looks like its own "standalone," but did so to a point where it looks atrocious) looks very upscale and detailed. I can't play 4 without having to vomit.
The storytelling in both games is trash. That pretty much goes without saying. Even fanfiction writers have an astronomical talent combined against the shill that is the Bethesda writing team. Just look up Sheason's Story or Mutatis Mutandis to get a clear picture how single individuals can come up with better writing for Fallout than the company that has had eons to attempt practice of getting better with the IP.
The plot of 3? A dumpster dive brawl against the Enclave with boring central leaders, a BoS that has somehow secured the pentagon before the Enclave has- gaining Liberty Prime and the general premise of an entire contingent of BoS to migrate ALL the way to the East Coast mothballing manpower for the BoS, a shitty "Dad" character voiced by Liam Niesson (as if that would be a pull, but I suppose for some that is just enough for people to think he's an "interesting" character) with special skills that when he dies you feel empty about him; oh and half the main quest you're forced to look for him, lacklustre companions (not in terms of OPness as we can see from Fawkes with his freakin' Gatling laser), and pitiful side quests.
The only good part about Fallout 3 was The Pitt DLC- and I'll say it again every time I bring The Pitt up, its the only time Beth got Fallout right.. or atleast an inkling of it.
The plot of 4? ...Do I really need to get in it as much? Its Blade-Runner melded into the Fallout series ungracefully where Bethesda though inane nonsense figured out a way for it to be also gelded into the whole family dynastic crap like they did in 3. The original characters they came up with are all crap, the Brotherhood which makes ANOTHER appearance is more OP than ever, but this time the whole Lyon dynastic is pruned so Bethesda can steal the West Coast dynamic because they KNEW the one they came up with for the East Coast in 3 sucked ass; boring companions except for Nick Valentine, even less DLCs- the prime portion taking up up the DLC outputs being settlement based; oh and settlements? Sims Lite/Minecraft but your settlements has no bearing on the world at all to the story or any effect to the world-state, and alot of other things entirely.
What urgency? You can do ALL the DLCs in 3 (except Broken Steel of course), do most of the side-quests, max your level, and fuck all about before even saving your father from Vault 112 with the simulation when he tried to contact Braun. The Fallout games with any sense of urgency was in 1 and 2 with calculated mechanics tacked to it to keep the immersion.
To this I'll give the edge to Fallout 3 over Fallout 4 because I really, really, don't like the feel of 4 compared to 3.
The same can literally be said about the Lone Wanderer. If he died before even getting his father out the simulation or retrieving the GECK, the Enclave probably would've never made a move for the Purifier busy with some other projects. Hell if James never left 101, Fallout 3 probably would've never even happened.
Even with Project Purity, it practically doesn't matter. Poison it with the FEV strain EDEN gives you? Nothing happens and Broken Steel carries on without repercussion instead of the BoS executing you for your crime of humanity and wasting their time only to sabotage the Project in the end. Carry on with Project Purity? Broken Steel just carries on until you finish it.
Last edited:
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Last of Us honest trailer
BigGuyCIA
Yer fond of me Lobster!
People don't explain anything to each other in this universe. Joel can't even take a moment to explain the 27 previously failed experiments where they took fungi-immune patients and hacked them up: "This time it will be different - I swear." The fireflies are a Berkeley freshman explaining why communism failed the first 27 times.
AngryJoe made a very strong point in his rant regarding who is allowed to have revenge. Abby can have her revenge but Ellie is not allowed to. Ellie is in total shambles at the end of the story after relenting - at what cost? Everything I guess. They really tried to make the player forget that Abby's dad was a remorseless doctor hacking up people in botched experiments all in the name of the greater good.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
I just wrote a LAST OF US PART 2 essay I think you guys will enjoy:
The Last of Us 2: Revenge, Redemption, and Regret in the Other Mushroom Kingdom
By. C.T. Phipps
THE LAST OF US 2 is a controversial game to say the least. I already did a review for Grimdark Magazine and gave it a nine out of ten. So, you can guess that I have a genuinely high opinion of the subject. However, it is a game that is controversial for a reason. People develop parasocial relationships with fictional characters and this game takes advantage of that to maximum effect. Because I've already reviewed the game in basic, this will discuss more detailed elements of the plot. So there will be SPOILERS ahoy and this shall be your last warning.
The premise of the game is simple: Ellie and Joel are living a idyllic life in Jackson after the traumatizing events of the first game. Ellie is the only known person immune to the cordyceps infection and the terrorist-scientist group known as the Fireflies planned to chop her up in order to manufacture a vaccine. Joel killed all the Fireflies and lied to Ellie about what he did. Ellie has held it against him ever since. Unfortunately, Ellie never gets a chance to reconcile with Joel because he's promptly murdered by a group of teenagers that are related to the Fireflies. Ellie proceeds to get her guns together and go on a mission of revenge but is her cause justified?
Revenge is one of the most well-used, perhaps overused, plotlines in fiction. Virtually all angles it can be examined have been examined. There's John Wick who simultaneously wants to avenge his dog as well as falls into the old pattern of murder-for-hire because it's something familiar. There's Lincoln Clay who murders hundreds of Italian gangsters while debating whether he's doing it for justice or the opportunity to become the new boss of New Bordeaux. Aiden Pearce wants to tradk down who killed his niece while ignoring that the person most responsible for his death is arguably himself. Dishonored is all about revenge with the caveat that you can sentence them to fates even worse than death by sparing them.
The Last of Us Part II's take on revenge is very different in that it doesn't go with the standard take of making your revenge cathartic. It also doesn't even make revenge a bit good and a bit bad. Lincoln Clay can spare a lot of the mobsters he fights and only kill his most direct targets. Aiden Pearce can end up sparing the hitman who directly killed his niece. Corvo Attano canonically spares Daud's life while slaghtering the rest of them. The Last of Us Part II has you carve your way through hundreds of soldiers, only to end up losing more people you care about and finally realizing you don't care about revenge in the end.
I don't mind this story in the slightest since one of my favorite movies if THE TRUE GRIT remake by the Coen Brothers. The premise of that movie is they took a revenge movie and proceeded to make it horrific. The consequences to Mattie Ross in that movie are horrific, resulting in her losing her friends as well as her arm. Perhaps the big difference is the fact that Mattie genuinely seems happy with her choice, no matter the cost, while Ellie clearly wishes she never went on her revenge spree at all. I'd argue that Abby suffers every bit as much since she loses her friends, faction, and gets crucified like Conan. Worse, ends up rescued by someone who actually saved her just to kinda kill her but doesn't even want to do that either.
It also reminds me strongly of Kurosawa's RASHOMON and I wouldn't be surprised if that was an influence. Basically, that movie is all about switching perspectives on events and how people present as well as view themselves. The big twist of Rashomon is that virtually everyone in the story turns out to be a coward and a fool with no dignity. They all just lie about what they did and what they wanted to make themselves look better. Abby and Ellie go through the motions of revenge but they also try to "heroically" spare each other, only for that to fail because their actions have made both even more pissed off at one another. Mercy doesn't have the same effect it does in Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings.
Oddly, I love this story BECAUSE it's dirty, messy, and grimdark. One of the most unsatisfying narratives that I ever experienced was ASSASSINS CREED V. It was attempting to recapture the lightning in a bottle that was Ezio Auditore's revenge quest against the Borgia family. However, the ending of Arno's quest for revenge ends on a nasty note where his girlfriend Elise dies killing the main bad.
She happily sacrificed her life to kill her father's murderer and reassures Arno via posthumous letter that it was for the best. Here, both Ellie and Abby's father figures both wanted them to live happy lives--because they're loving parents. Their quest for revenge is in direct contradiction to what their fathers would have wanted for them because it brings nothing but grief. Both Abby and Ellie lose more friends as well as their places in society because of their actions.
I don't think the ending is particularly bad either but I also like the uncertainty to it. Ellie has sacrificed her relationship with Dina and a child they could raise together for revenge. She's also been maimed and can no longer play the guitar. I think she's achieved closure, though, and can return to Jackson to make a new life for herself. Abby has lost her friends, faction, and been crucified but has a friend she's protected. She's also got place that might take her in if they still exist. Either of them could end up the protagonist of The Last of Us III and I'd be satisfied with that. Indeed, I'm eager to see who the protagonist of the upcoming DLC is and hope they start working on the next game soon.
Now for the question of whether I think they should have killed Joel. I think that's a question built around personal attachment. I hated when the Lone Wanderer, Commander Shepherd, and Elizabeth died in their games. Holy hell, did I hate Burial at Sea for Bioshock: Infinite. However, I should point out that Joel was already in his early fifties in The Last of Us. Any adventures he further had would have been in Old Snake territory. I also think Joel, of all people, knew he had it coming for all the terrible things he did during the apocalypse. He was a former Hunter and only cared to make sure Ellie lived versus himself. He, unlike Ellie, probably wouldn't have held it against Abby for killing him.
Would I have done the same thing for this game? No, speaking as a writer I probably would have started the game with Abby rather than Ellie. I would have made her escape as a child from the Firefly facility and let the players know that Joel is her target. I also would have made Joel die as a boss battle because I think it would have gone over better. Then I would have switched to Ellie and made the whole thing much more ambiguous. Give us an entire half of the game with Abby and her friends before you make us hunt her. I also think that Ellie's girlfriend doesn't really add anything to the story and the romance subplot is kind of a plot tumor that distracts from the much more interesting relationship between Abby vs. Ellie.
My .02.
The Last of Us 2: Revenge, Redemption, and Regret in the Other Mushroom Kingdom
By. C.T. Phipps
THE LAST OF US 2 is a controversial game to say the least. I already did a review for Grimdark Magazine and gave it a nine out of ten. So, you can guess that I have a genuinely high opinion of the subject. However, it is a game that is controversial for a reason. People develop parasocial relationships with fictional characters and this game takes advantage of that to maximum effect. Because I've already reviewed the game in basic, this will discuss more detailed elements of the plot. So there will be SPOILERS ahoy and this shall be your last warning.
The premise of the game is simple: Ellie and Joel are living a idyllic life in Jackson after the traumatizing events of the first game. Ellie is the only known person immune to the cordyceps infection and the terrorist-scientist group known as the Fireflies planned to chop her up in order to manufacture a vaccine. Joel killed all the Fireflies and lied to Ellie about what he did. Ellie has held it against him ever since. Unfortunately, Ellie never gets a chance to reconcile with Joel because he's promptly murdered by a group of teenagers that are related to the Fireflies. Ellie proceeds to get her guns together and go on a mission of revenge but is her cause justified?
Revenge is one of the most well-used, perhaps overused, plotlines in fiction. Virtually all angles it can be examined have been examined. There's John Wick who simultaneously wants to avenge his dog as well as falls into the old pattern of murder-for-hire because it's something familiar. There's Lincoln Clay who murders hundreds of Italian gangsters while debating whether he's doing it for justice or the opportunity to become the new boss of New Bordeaux. Aiden Pearce wants to tradk down who killed his niece while ignoring that the person most responsible for his death is arguably himself. Dishonored is all about revenge with the caveat that you can sentence them to fates even worse than death by sparing them.
The Last of Us Part II's take on revenge is very different in that it doesn't go with the standard take of making your revenge cathartic. It also doesn't even make revenge a bit good and a bit bad. Lincoln Clay can spare a lot of the mobsters he fights and only kill his most direct targets. Aiden Pearce can end up sparing the hitman who directly killed his niece. Corvo Attano canonically spares Daud's life while slaghtering the rest of them. The Last of Us Part II has you carve your way through hundreds of soldiers, only to end up losing more people you care about and finally realizing you don't care about revenge in the end.
I don't mind this story in the slightest since one of my favorite movies if THE TRUE GRIT remake by the Coen Brothers. The premise of that movie is they took a revenge movie and proceeded to make it horrific. The consequences to Mattie Ross in that movie are horrific, resulting in her losing her friends as well as her arm. Perhaps the big difference is the fact that Mattie genuinely seems happy with her choice, no matter the cost, while Ellie clearly wishes she never went on her revenge spree at all. I'd argue that Abby suffers every bit as much since she loses her friends, faction, and gets crucified like Conan. Worse, ends up rescued by someone who actually saved her just to kinda kill her but doesn't even want to do that either.
It also reminds me strongly of Kurosawa's RASHOMON and I wouldn't be surprised if that was an influence. Basically, that movie is all about switching perspectives on events and how people present as well as view themselves. The big twist of Rashomon is that virtually everyone in the story turns out to be a coward and a fool with no dignity. They all just lie about what they did and what they wanted to make themselves look better. Abby and Ellie go through the motions of revenge but they also try to "heroically" spare each other, only for that to fail because their actions have made both even more pissed off at one another. Mercy doesn't have the same effect it does in Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings.
Oddly, I love this story BECAUSE it's dirty, messy, and grimdark. One of the most unsatisfying narratives that I ever experienced was ASSASSINS CREED V. It was attempting to recapture the lightning in a bottle that was Ezio Auditore's revenge quest against the Borgia family. However, the ending of Arno's quest for revenge ends on a nasty note where his girlfriend Elise dies killing the main bad.
She happily sacrificed her life to kill her father's murderer and reassures Arno via posthumous letter that it was for the best. Here, both Ellie and Abby's father figures both wanted them to live happy lives--because they're loving parents. Their quest for revenge is in direct contradiction to what their fathers would have wanted for them because it brings nothing but grief. Both Abby and Ellie lose more friends as well as their places in society because of their actions.
I don't think the ending is particularly bad either but I also like the uncertainty to it. Ellie has sacrificed her relationship with Dina and a child they could raise together for revenge. She's also been maimed and can no longer play the guitar. I think she's achieved closure, though, and can return to Jackson to make a new life for herself. Abby has lost her friends, faction, and been crucified but has a friend she's protected. She's also got place that might take her in if they still exist. Either of them could end up the protagonist of The Last of Us III and I'd be satisfied with that. Indeed, I'm eager to see who the protagonist of the upcoming DLC is and hope they start working on the next game soon.
Now for the question of whether I think they should have killed Joel. I think that's a question built around personal attachment. I hated when the Lone Wanderer, Commander Shepherd, and Elizabeth died in their games. Holy hell, did I hate Burial at Sea for Bioshock: Infinite. However, I should point out that Joel was already in his early fifties in The Last of Us. Any adventures he further had would have been in Old Snake territory. I also think Joel, of all people, knew he had it coming for all the terrible things he did during the apocalypse. He was a former Hunter and only cared to make sure Ellie lived versus himself. He, unlike Ellie, probably wouldn't have held it against Abby for killing him.
Would I have done the same thing for this game? No, speaking as a writer I probably would have started the game with Abby rather than Ellie. I would have made her escape as a child from the Firefly facility and let the players know that Joel is her target. I also would have made Joel die as a boss battle because I think it would have gone over better. Then I would have switched to Ellie and made the whole thing much more ambiguous. Give us an entire half of the game with Abby and her friends before you make us hunt her. I also think that Ellie's girlfriend doesn't really add anything to the story and the romance subplot is kind of a plot tumor that distracts from the much more interesting relationship between Abby vs. Ellie.
My .02.
TheGM
The voice of reason
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Speaking as a academic, that's actually how testing things works. If anyone ever says they get it right in the first time, they're fudging data. Killing all the Fireflies is morally correct to Joel not because they're incompetent (though that's possible), it's because he's saving his daughter and fuck the rest of humanity.
That's a dumb argument because Joel openly admits to having murdered a bunch of innocent people as a Hunter. It doesn't matter because Ellie isn't hunting Abby down because Joel is a good guy. She's hunting Abby down because Joel is her father.
It's not about morality or justice nor does either woman pretend to. It's about grief and rage.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Your loss.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
He didn't say fuck the rest of humanity. He said "surviving in this kind of world can be good too" assuming you have people to spend it with. Even if he did let Ellie get chopped to bits (I wish he did) there would be wars fought for decades afterward. There would never be true peace in the shitty Last of Us world.
Lidku
Wasteland Sniper
Any next part of TLOU should be a story centering around a Pakistani-American named Akbar bin Ghazi who is trying to establish a Caliphate in the Midwest. He recruits Abby into his Jihad seeing her to be a formidable warrior and they go around the post-cordyceps wasteland America gaining more and more territory. When they continue gathering more and more territory, they head up to Utah and secure the entire state where Akbar bin Ghazi declares Phoenix the capital of the Ghazi Caliphate.
Ghazi Caliphate scouts come upon Hoover Dam, but its unclaimed by nobody- no military remnants, no revanched settlements, and not bandits seemingly enough. He has Abby, despite her being a female; his highest ranked Amir send a force to secure the Dam...
However.
There is surprise when another armed force comes to meet them in opposition for recovery of the Hoover Dam- another nation grown out of the ashes of post-cordyceps America calling itself the New American Republic. This Republic is dedicated to upholding the consequential values of pre-cordycep America of democracy and "fair" law to the carcass that is old America.
As such when two juggernauts of differing ideologue meet- they clash, sparking the first New American Republic-Ghazi Caliphate war. Bullets fly, machetes lacerate upon flesh, grenades blow up- sending their cacophonous fragments of death across the Hoover Dam battlefield. Amidst all this visceral battle however, Elle and Abby see each other across other opposite lanes once again- as if fate drew them to this meeting point once again. Elle after the end of TLOU2 decided to trek west for a new beginning having lost everything, a new start beckoning to her. There she enlisted to the NAR as common soldier wanting to serve some sort of cause with her life having little meaning with all her loved ones gone.
There she worked her way up until her talents were noticed and she was offered to become a ranger- one of the elite units available to the New American Republic. She agreed, taking on missions similar to what she faced when she went on the blind trail for revenge.
All of that culminated to the point where by fate itself or a mere stroke of circumstantial luck brought Elle and Abby to fight once more; once more upon the Hoover.