Playing as Abby does not mean forgiving her

Familiar actions, a different person to protect

Abby's section retains much of the game's familiar interaction language: moving through cover, searching for supplies, aiming, crafting and healing. The player can bring existing knowledge into a role they may not want to inhabit.

That continuity matters because it allows the conflict to remain understandable. You know how to survive, but may resist whose survival you are responsible for. A confusing control change would introduce a different reason to reject the section, distracting from the conflict created by the narrative.

There are differences in equipment, upgrades and physical expression. Abby does not need to feel identical to Ellie for that familiarity to hold. The interesting balance is enough continuity to act competently, with enough difference to make the new role tangible.

Participation can complicate judgment

A cutscene can show a character's vulnerability. Play adds a different relationship: the player has to respond to it. Healing Abby or protecting her during an encounter makes her survival an immediate task, even if the player remains opposed to her actions.

I read this as an opportunity for empathy, rather than a mechanism that automatically produces it. Some players may become invested. Others may complete the objectives while keeping their emotional distance. The game can require participation, but it cannot require a particular interpretation.

That limit strengthens the analysis. Saying the game “makes you empathize” ignores the tension between performing an action and endorsing the person performing it.

The switch also asks the player to start again

The structural cost is substantial. At a point where the player may want resolution, the game redirects attention toward another history, another set of relationships and renewed progression. Curiosity has to compete with impatience.

A faster opening to Abby's section might reduce that resistance, but it could also weaken the ordinary routines that give her relationships context. I would treat pacing changes as a trade-off to investigate, not an obvious repair. Knowing that discomfort is intentional does not tell us whether its duration works for a particular player.

Facing Ellie changes an established relationship

The theater confrontation gives that tension a concrete form. Ellie becomes the person the player must survive against. Familiarity with her no longer serves only attachment; it also informs the threat she presents.

The interaction asks the player to act against a character they have spent time protecting. The controls remain understandable while the emotional meaning of success becomes uncomfortable. That is a more precise description of the design than treating the scene as a general lesson that unpleasant experiences are good UX.

The game's approach interests me because it allows competence and resistance to coexist. You can know what the game asks you to do and still hesitate. Whether that hesitation leads to empathy, frustration or both is part of what makes the experience worth discussing.