So.. Let's Talk About "The Last of Us II" I guess

[CatScrezatio]

There are a few things in media that I genuinely love, but I generally don't like to discuss with other people. Primarily because the discussion around those things has become so vitriolic and spiteful, that it just sucks any enjoyment I may have gotten from openly talking about it, out of the whole discussion.

For those of you curious, among those things are the Star Wars franchise, and another vidya game sequel, "Evil Within 2" (it's better than the original, don't @ me)

And, at least for the time being, I think that "The Last of Us II" will be heaped onto that pile as well. This discourse sees the same general problems I see a lot with Star Wars (blaming all their problems on one specific person, who was a major driving force behind the thing they loved so dearly, and conveniently forgetting that the person or thing that was "conveniently missing" has also not had a perfect track record.)

Now, I don't want to judge anyone if they did or did not like the game. I won't blame you for that, but I will warn there may be SPOILERS of the game, which I'll try to contain to separate tags.

So, let's talk about TloU...

1. Not what People wanted
So, this is a talking point that I feel is pretty on-the-nose. It happens to a lot of sequels (Star Wars new trilogy especially) where you get this idea of the first in your head, and get some upset when it's different from your initial hopes of what it would be.

People wanted more of the Ellie/Joel road-trip game, and that's not what was delivered. It's not a story about fatherhood and creating a family and sacrifice, it's just.. Different.. And isn't that what a sequel should be?

About to jump into spoilers here, so let's go.

See more

So, right off the bat, we have Joel getting beaten to death. It's really fucking brutal, and pretty upsetting to see a beloved character killed like that. On top of that, part of the game is played from the perspective of the killer.

This is a very bold move on ND's part, as well have absolutely no reason to like Abby, but we're forced into her shoes for about the same amount of time we spend as Ellie. By all means, it should be a terrible idea. But it has a point.

Abby is a broken person, like everyone else here. Her father was shot and killee by Joel, so she got revenge (one of the central themes of the game) and launcher Ellie into her own vengeance-driven warpath. They antagonize each other because they wanted to kill each other. They are, in a way, the facilitators of their own cycle of revenge.

Rather than being a surrogate father, daughter tale, it's a solemn lamentation on revenge and the effect it has on ourselves, as well as those around us.

So, let's talk about that...

2. Ellie, Abby and the damages of revenge

See more

TloU 2 is very different in tone and themes. It's dark, somber and incredibly bleak. Like before, it deals with family. But where TloU is about finding family, TloU 2 is about pushing them away.

Ellie is grieving for Joel. Not only that, but she feels guilt over his death, as well as the fact that she never made up with him after their falling-out over him taking her away from the Fireflies. She's dealing with her guilt, as well as her anger, by seeking revenge for his death.

This leads her and her girlfriend, Dina, across the country, and into serious danger, trying to find and kill Abby. Ellie puts herself, as well as her pregnant girlfriend at risk, as fuel for her desire to get even for Joel's death.

This drive for revenge pushes Dina away, as well as causes Ellie to lose two of her fingers. The last scene is very important, seeing her in the abandoned house she used to share with Dina, and failing to play the guitar because of her lost fingers. The life she had, was lost, all because she couldn't let go.

Abby is a similar case, she's driven to brutally murder Joel, and becomes a deranged maniac throughout the game, nearly killing a pregnant woman, and nearly drowning twice.

The game focuses on the cyclica nature of revenge, and how it corrupts and destroys people. Each character is affected by it, and had Ellie gone through and murdered About in the end of the game, she would have become a victim same as her. Speaking of which, let's talk about..

3. The ending

See more

Ellie could not have killed Abbie in the end, or it would have rendered the whole story absolutely pointless.

I need to get that out there right up front. A lot of people I've seen have complained that there was no justice for Joel. I would argue, justice was a lost cause the moment Ellie set out after Abbie from the farmhouse.

Joel would not have wanted Ellie to risk her life. He would have wanted her to stay and be happy with Dina, have the happy home life that he lost in the apocalypse.

If Ellie kills Abbie, she becomes no better than Abbie. She becomes the same thing she set out to destroy, and nothing changes. The whole point of the story, is Ellie learning that revenge will no solve anything. Killing Abbie won't make her feel better, and it's only brought ruin upon her so far. Again, we go back to the last scene and it's clear that she's lost so much. Everything seems hopeless, unless...

4. The Last of Us Strikes Back
In a way, this really reminds me of "Star Wars episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back" it was very different from the first, ended on a very downer note, and was initially hated by fans. But now, it's beloved and heralded as the best of the series.

I'm not saying TloU 2 is Empire, I'm saying we haven't seen the last of the series yet. Considering how much critical acclaim this is getting, and how the player feedback is kinda starting to balance out, I think there will be a middling on this for awhile.

It's a very different game, with a very different tone, and frankly, if you're surprised and upset that nobody is safe in a game about the literal apocalypse, I will not have as much sympathy for you. I'm sorry.

Overall, this is the middle of the story of Ellie (presumably, since apparenrly plans for a thirs installment are in the works) and I don't think we can really pass judgment until we have the full story.

Personally, I quite enjoyed the game, and I think once people start replaying it and the initial shock wears off, other people will start looking favorably upon it too.

But that's just me, what do you think?

 

[Wolder]

Great post! So ill bite

Right off the bat I should probably mention that I haven’t played TLOU2 yet. Only played the first and that was years ago. Busy schedule right now – i'll get around to it at some point. I have, however, seen the story play out on YouTube(I know, not the same)

A few comments on the state of media and entertainment first. you’re right that things online have gotten vitriolic and spiteful, not to mention toxic. This is probably a reflection of society in general. We live in times of great political conflict (Trump, Brexit, Rise of China, modern identity, globalization etc., just to mention a few examples) and this spills over into other spheres. A contributing factor is probably also that millennials (the people who grew up with internet culture) have reached a state of maturity where they have a strong sense of critical thinking, the language to form their disappointment along with an analytical framework to form their criticism around. Not saying that every hater is a millennial or anything like that... just that the internet was a very different and maybe more innocent and happier place back in the early 2000´s.



I agree with your analysis about “blaming all their problems on one specific person”. It’s probably because that is simply way easier than blaming a faceless board or corporation. People want to find THE person responsible and punish THEM. That’s harder to do if the sin is a product of a joint collective decision, rather than a single person. Who´s Twitter do you then cancel? Anyways, enough rambling. On to TLOU2.



1. Not what people wanted.

I wholeheartedly agree. The first game is generally seen as a masterpiece and people wanted more of the same. Naughty Dog didn’t. This disconnect is interesting in multiple ways. I’m quite surprised that ND didn’t take the easy route here and simply delivered a sequel with minor thematic and narrative changes along with a more polished combat system. I guess they should be applauded for their bravery in this regard – they didn’t take the easy route. However, when you take things in unexpected directions backlash is inevitable. You can’t really call that lazy – just unexpected.

There is also a fine line however – If you go to see a romantic comedy, you don’t expect horror elements to fill up the movie. If you go to see a superhero flick, you don’t expect a heavy dose of realism. Or to use an even more extreme example: You don’t expect to see porn when you turn on your TV and zap to the nearest channel. If you take your eight-year-old nephew to the theater to watch a Disney movie and its suddenly full of gore and torture, you’re going to be pissed – and rightfully so. People have a general understanding and unspoken expectation of genre, themes and in which boxes certain pieces of entertainment fits. Killing off Joel so soon and in such a horrible way may have been a leap too far for many people – regardless of who did it, how, why etc. I think ND may have misunderstood (to a certain extent) what drew people in. It was the characters – not the gameplay(redundant), not the theme (Post-apocalypse? Yea, not exactly new) and not even the story – but the two very human and relatable characters at the center of the first game. Remove that and you remove a very central part of what makes it interesting. Forcing the players to play as a new character you downright hate is indeed a bold move – but probably also one that was too bold for many fans to handle. I think it comes down to what specific part of the first game you appreciated the most. If you related to Joel and enjoyed the heroic fantasy of being a badass in the apocalypse, yea, his death and defilement is a spit in the face. If you enjoyed the game for other reasons, you might be able to overlook that and move on.



2. Ellie, Abby and the damages of revenge

Where to start on this. I think ND showed us a very raw and unglorified aspect of the post-apocalypse. Many genres only hint or shy away from this. TLOU2 didn’t. It is a brutal and cruel world and that breaks people. Some critics point to the revenge-plot and acclaim that’s its devoid of much depth and functionally makes no sense, as you kill hordes of people on your way to Abby, only to spare her, specifically, when she was actually the one you set out to kill. I can kind of agree with that. At least that the moral point of not seeking revenge will seem a bit hollow when we will probably be killing people left and right again in a third game, if it happens. Ultimately, I think the message is good – that we, as people, must heal, before we can heal the world – but it could have been delivered in a better way. Maybe Elllie could have captured Abby or someone else in the end and traded them for Joel – signifying that change IS possible and that showing mercy doesn’t equal weakness. If ND really wanted revenge to be the main point of the series, they could have had Ellie kill Abby and the third game could be you hunting down Ellie, concluding with her death. That would at least make a full circle.



I also agree that everything new hinges on the third game and how they choose to wrap things up. If Ellie becomes a grand messiah, leading people out of the violent darkness of their world, then yes, the second part makes sense as her trial of fire. When it's all said and done tho, I think the series will end up in a very different place from what people expected after the first entry – and ND will have lost some fans along the way. We, as a gaming community will also have to accept that people are split on this – some people like one thing, some like another. Neither is wrong. The professional media critics and people praising it as the best game of the generation will have to accept that the game's bold choices simply didn’t work for everyone. Likewise, the “haters” and nay-sayers will have to accept that some people DID enjoy its narrative branching and found a lot of meaning and enjoyment in what THEY found flat.



I’m not AS emotionally invested in this franchise as some of my friends, so I can kind of see it from both sides. IF I had been in ND´s shoes I would have played it safe and made it another road-trip with a more mature Ellie and maybe an older Joel, introducing new dynamics, but not shaking the foundation. I think I would have reserved the revenge-plot for a spinoff or another series – UNLESS they have a grand plan mapped out for the third entry and had it planned all along, knowing exactly where they were going with this.

 

[CatScrezatio]

Great post! So ill bite

Right off the bat I should probably mention that I haven’t played TLOU2 yet. Only played the first and that was years ago. Busy schedule right now – i'll get around to it at some point. I have, however, seen the story play out on YouTube(I know, not the same)

A few comments on the state of media and entertainment first. you’re right that things online have gotten vitriolic and spiteful, not to mention toxic. This is probably a reflection of society in general. We live in times of great political conflict (Trump, Brexit, Rise of China, modern identity, globalization etc., just to mention a few examples) and this spills over into other spheres. A contributing factor is probably also that millennials (the people who grew up with internet culture) have reached a state of maturity where they have a strong sense of critical thinking, the language to form their disappointment along with an analytical framework to form their criticism around. Not saying that every hater is a millennial or anything like that... just that the internet was a very different and maybe more innocent and happier place back in the early 2000´s.



I agree with your analysis about “blaming all their problems on one specific person”. It’s probably because that is simply way easier than blaming a faceless board or corporation. People want to find THE person responsible and punish THEM. That’s harder to do if the sin is a product of a joint collective decision, rather than a single person. Who´s Twitter do you then cancel? Anyways, enough rambling. On to TLOU2.



1. Not what people wanted.

I wholeheartedly agree. The first game is generally seen as a masterpiece and people wanted more of the same. Naughty Dog didn’t. This disconnect is interesting in multiple ways. I’m quite surprised that ND didn’t take the easy route here and simply delivered a sequel with minor thematic and narrative changes along with a more polished combat system. I guess they should be applauded for their bravery in this regard – they didn’t take the easy route. However, when you take things in unexpected directions backlash is inevitable. You can’t really call that lazy – just unexpected.

There is also a fine line however – If you go to see a romantic comedy, you don’t expect horror elements to fill up the movie. If you go to see a superhero flick, you don’t expect a heavy dose of realism. Or to use an even more extreme example: You don’t expect to see porn when you turn on your TV and zap to the nearest channel. If you take your eight-year-old nephew to the theater to watch a Disney movie and its suddenly full of gore and torture, you’re going to be pissed – and rightfully so. People have a general understanding and unspoken expectation of genre, themes and in which boxes certain pieces of entertainment fits. Killing off Joel so soon and in such a horrible way may have been a leap too far for many people – regardless of who did it, how, why etc. I think ND may have misunderstood (to a certain extent) what drew people in. It was the characters – not the gameplay(redundant), not the theme (Post-apocalypse? Yea, not exactly new) and not even the story – but the two very human and relatable characters at the center of the first game. Remove that and you remove a very central part of what makes it interesting. Forcing the players to play as a new character you downright hate is indeed a bold move – but probably also one that was too bold for many fans to handle. I think it comes down to what specific part of the first game you appreciated the most. If you related to Joel and enjoyed the heroic fantasy of being a badass in the apocalypse, yea, his death and defilement is a spit in the face. If you enjoyed the game for other reasons, you might be able to overlook that and move on.



2. Ellie, Abby and the damages of revenge

Where to start on this. I think ND showed us a very raw and unglorified aspect of the post-apocalypse. Many genres only hint or shy away from this. TLOU2 didn’t. It is a brutal and cruel world and that breaks people. Some critics point to the revenge-plot and acclaim that’s its devoid of much depth and functionally makes no sense, as you kill hordes of people on your way to Abby, only to spare her, specifically, when she was actually the one you set out to kill. I can kind of agree with that. At least that the moral point of not seeking revenge will seem a bit hollow when we will probably be killing people left and right again in a third game, if it happens. Ultimately, I think the message is good – that we, as people, must heal, before we can heal the world – but it could have been delivered in a better way. Maybe Elllie could have captured Abby or someone else in the end and traded them for Joel – signifying that change IS possible and that showing mercy doesn’t equal weakness. If ND really wanted revenge to be the main point of the series, they could have had Ellie kill Abby and the third game could be you hunting down Ellie, concluding with her death. That would at least make a full circle.



I also agree that everything new hinges on the third game and how they choose to wrap things up. If Ellie becomes a grand messiah, leading people out of the violent darkness of their world, then yes, the second part makes sense as her trial of fire. When it's all said and done tho, I think the series will end up in a very different place from what people expected after the first entry – and ND will have lost some fans along the way. We, as a gaming community will also have to accept that people are split on this – some people like one thing, some like another. Neither is wrong. The professional media critics and people praising it as the best game of the generation will have to accept that the game's bold choices simply didn’t work for everyone. Likewise, the “haters” and nay-sayers will have to accept that some people DID enjoy its narrative branching and found a lot of meaning and enjoyment in what THEY found flat.



I’m not AS emotionally invested in this franchise as some of my friends, so I can kind of see it from both sides. IF I had been in ND´s shoes I would have played it safe and made it another road-trip with a more mature Ellie and maybe an older Joel, introducing new dynamics, but not shaking the foundation. I think I would have reserved the revenge-plot for a spinoff or another series – UNLESS they have a grand plan mapped out for the third entry and had it planned all along, knowing exactly where they were going with this.

You've made some very good points, and I really appreciate the response!

I agree that Joel's death was a lot to handle for a lot of people. After all, the relationship between Joel and Ellie was the centerpiece of the story in the first game. Personally, I was shocked by that turn of events, but it made sense to me. This is the apocalypse, people die, and people were like die. Thinking about it a bit more, it felt a little overindulgent. Getting beaten to death with a golf club is a pretty gruesome death, and I think you could have made the same point with just a bullet to the head.

A friend drew parallels to that episode of TWD where Glenn gets murdered, and since they paced it poorly, it's this long, drawn-out sequence of him getting murdered and it's really not fun to watch, it's just miserable. So, I don't like the means but I can understand the ends. Really, if people wanted more Joel, he was in a lot of the game during flashback, so we he's not completely tossed aside.

Really, it boils down from there to how people feel about Dina and the other side characters. I like Dina. I felt that the romance between her and Ellie was cute, and lifted a bit from the misery of the game.

That's the big thing about TLou 2, it's a miserable game. The tone is so gloomy and somber, it's different from the original by a lot. Much more in-line with tradition post apocalypse media (Night of the Living Dead, 28 Days Later, Etc.) The shift in tone could have been explained better, but unfortunately, it's difficult to get that across without saying it outright.


On the topic of killing. I can see your argument but I don't entirely agree. In the apocalypse we're shown, killing is a normal part of traveling. On the roadtrip story of the first, Joel slaughtered his way through hundreds just to get to where they needed to go. I can see where the point is coming from, but I feel that it's a bit if a nitpicky argument, in that fighting and combat in an action horror game is going to happen. We like Uncharted, but we look past the fact that Nathan Drake kills hundreds of people each game to get to the treasures.

I still hold firm that Ellie shouldn't have killed Abby. I can see why the "Joel's being held hostage" would work. But ut makes the revenge aspects diminished. Ellie's showing mercy because she wants Joel back, and not because she's realizing that she's becoming like Abby. Abby is a dark reflection of Ellie, and as Ellie pushes away people she loves for revenge, she comes to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it. It's the cornerstone of the major themes of the game, and it would undermine it if she took the opportunity and killed her. This decision might come back in a later game, Abby might save Ellie's life or help her in some way, but we won't know that until the next game is released.

You're probably right about the third game. Ellie's always been sort of an "unlikely messiah" character, and I think the third game will be here redemption. That makes sense, I feel, and would close out the story very nicely. Either to be left as a trilogy, or to let them start exploring other characters.

Really, I feel like if they just made another road trip sort of story, people would have complained. It's the same with SW, if they just got the old cast back and had them primarily, and made the same films, like many people claimed they wanted, it would have been planned anyway. I'm sure that ND has a plan for the third game, considering how dark this one ended, and really I would rather they take the risk than just do the same thing over again.

I think every big sequel to a massively popular game has this same dilemma. You make it too similar and people complain because it's the same. You take a risk and make it really different, and people complain that it's not enough like the original. It's quite the Catch 22. I expect the God of War sequel is gonna face similar problems. RDR2 kept close to the original enough as to be a bit safe, but it could have seen the same problems as well.