The Last of Us, Part III?

[JPT]

So like I never played part 2, since the PS4 Pro tried to take off with afterburners on when I tried playing it.
But what is woke about it and why is that so bad?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Its so funny that I'm the mirror oposite. I don't mind main characters dying or suffering or whatever. As long as the the other characters can be as interesting. In fact, I never cared much for Joel. Guy was a dick, and he deserved what he got irrespective of part I's ending. Nothing unfair there. Ellie was the light of the first game, joel was there to bring it out by contrast only.

I liked Joel in the first game and the dad in me really identified with his motivations and actions, from the perspective of trying to put myself in his situation. And you know.. I still don't know what I would have done in that situation at the end of the first game. I just don't.. I certainly wasn't that conflicted about saving Ellie given the odds seemed stacked against the Firefly doctors producing a viable cure - all the clues being in the hospital itself.

For me, that made the second game and the introduction of Abby really interesting. I would just have preferred a narrative that didn't kill a beloved character, but for the story they wanted to tell - revenge, and revenge begets revenge, along with consequences - there needed to be something.

The second game has political correctness splattered all over the story, for sure. Doesn't take from the fact you get some kick arse action in it.

What political correctness? If you're going to say there were non-straight people in the game, I'm going to be really disappointed. Because The Last of Us Part II was entirely a story about survival and revenge. I don't know what the hell game other people who felt it was full of political correctness were playing.

 

[Nesh]

What political correctness? If you're going to say there were non-straight people in the game, I'm going to be really disappointed. Because The Last of Us Part II was entirely a story about survival and revenge. I don't know what the hell game other people who felt it was full of political correctness were playing.

It reflects people's non acceptance of difference. Because they werent expecting it and didnt want to see it, once it is front of them it annoys them. Since it annoys them they need to express it.
And they express it by blaming reasons they think its there.

 

[orangpelupa]

So like I never played part 2, since the PS4 Pro tried to take off with afterburners on when I tried playing it.
But what is woke about it and why is that so bad?

Your PS4 pro was simply too hyped.

 

[Grizzly Teddy]

I'd be happy to have new characters as well, which I thought would have been a better idea than a full up remake. Hope it's not a cash grab!

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I liked all of the second game, but I admit that Joel was too good of a character to kill off like that.

IMO, Joel got exactly what he deserved. He needed to be killed off. He started off as this great guy that I could empathize with for most of the game, and then at the end he just turned into this horrible psychotic monster.

First, he basically shit all over Elle's dream of helping humanity with finding a cure, even if it cost her life. Then he goes on a murderous rampage killing people that were attempting to find a cure and help humanity ... basically choosing to doom the human race.

Yeah, I was very satisfied with Joel's death in the second game. That was one redeeming point for the 2nd game that also helped redeem how they chose to end the first game.

I'm glad they also attempted to portray some of the after effects of his murderous rampage.

I understand that in real life some parents would chose to become monsters in order to save their children. It still wouldn't absolve them of their crimes, however, even if I understood their motivation. I also understand why some parents would lie to their children and crush their dreams, but that just makes them bad parents, IMO.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

IMO, Joel got exactly what he deserved. He needed to be killed off. He started off as this great guy that I could empathize with for most of the game, and then at the end he just turned into this horrible psychotic monster.

I agree Joel got what he deserved from the retcon narrative, but he didn't need to die. His days could have ended in any number of ways. If you think he turned into a "horrible psychotic monster" then that can be because you played him in the first game.

My take, and the way I played Joel where you have discretion on when to kill or not, was only to kill where it was necessary to survive. The ending is the ending either way, but when I shot the doctors I shot them in the leg. In Part II, they re-did that sequence with Joel shooting the doctors in the head regardless of what you actually did in the first game.

But for me the bigger issue, which you discover only if you thoroughly search the hospital, was the procedure had a staggeringly low chance of successfully producing a viable vaccine. From my perspective, the terrorists were so desperate they were willing to kill a child. And it was never clear whether they told Ellie this.

They were never straight with Joel or Tess, so I feel it unlikely they were straight with Ellie.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I agree Joel got what he deserved from the retcon narrative, but he didn't need to die. His days could have ended in any number of ways. If you think he turned into a "horrible psychotic monster" then that can be because you played him in the first game.

My take, and the way I played Joel where you have discretion on when to kill or not, was only to kill where it was necessary to survive. The ending is the ending either way, but when I shot the doctors I shot them in the leg. In Part II, they re-did that sequence with Joel shooting the doctors in the head regardless of what you actually did in the first game.

But for me the bigger issue, which you discover only if you thoroughly search the hospital, was the procedure had a staggeringly low chance of successfully producing a viable vaccine. From my perspective, the terrorists were so desperate they were willing to kill a child. And it was never clear whether they told Ellie this.

They were never straight with Joel or Tess, so I feel it unlikely they were straight with Ellie.

Sure, I get what you're trying to say with the last bit there, however, that doesn't impact what Joel chose to do, or more importantly for me, what he chose to do afterwards. Rather than discuss it with Ellie, he instead chose to lie to her to make himself feel better. He knew that Ellie would not have approved of what he did there, because he knows his actions flew against everything Ellie believed in and wanted. He knew what he did was bad. But as with many humans when they've committed horrible acts he instead chose to lie to her about it and perhaps even lie to himself about it.

It's this self centered selfishness that sees him deliberately crush Ellie's dreams and then sees him murder the only people trying to or are even capable of finding a cure and then sees him lie about it all that really exposes what an immoral monster he turned himself into. Sure perhaps incapacitating the doctors and only killing the guards might be the lesser of what he could have done, but how were the doctors to defend themselves against the infected without the guards?

He obviously didn't start out that way, but after the events prior to the breakout (his daughter dying) then the events at the start of the game (his partner dying) and then the events during the journey, all of that culminated in, IMO, breaking him by the time he reached the researcher's outpost. If he were a stronger man or at least one who could treat Ellie respectfully, perhaps things could have turned out differently.

I have far more respect for the research camp who did some pretty bad things in an attempt to save humanity versus Joel who did some godawful things at the end for purely selfish reasons. In a world where everything you do is tinged in some way with having to choose doing the lesser of multiple evil paths, I personally feel like the research camp did a better job of navigating that morass than Joel did.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sure, I get what you're trying to say with the last bit there, however, that doesn't impact what Joel chose to do, or more importantly for me, what he chose to do afterwards. Rather than discuss it with Ellie, he instead chose to lie to her to make himself feel better.

The reason The Last of Us's ending is great is because it's unclear why Joel did it. It's completely down to the player to come to their own conclusion. Neil Druckmann has stated this was intentional in several interviews.

My take here was also different to yours. By the end of the game, Joel had established a fatherly relationship with Ellie and in my view, Joel did it to protect her. She had little chance to live life, and was too immature to make that decision, so he made it for her - just as parents do for children now. By Part II, he's too embedded in the lie to change until he is confronted about it. I've played The Last of Us several times and I've always left the game with the same impression, this was not about Joel being selfish but being protective.

The reason I don't subscribe to the selfish interpretation is because Joel had a ton of opportunities to be selfish throughout the game/story and never went there. He could have dumped Ellie anywhere at anytime and didn't even early on when their relationship was really strained. Joel was always putting others before himself, he demonstrated little selfish behaviour so why then?

I have far more respect for the research camp who did some pretty bad things in an attempt to save humanity versus Joel who did some godawful things at the end for purely selfish reasons.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The Fireflies killed people who disagreed with them, the game is littered with story moments establishing this, including recorders explaining that the Fireflies as an organisation were divided on what to do. The Fireflies attacked Joel and Ellie before they even knew who they were, they lied to Joel and Tess. Marlene misled them at every turn. They were not nice people. They were desperate people. Desperate people are dangerous.

Were they any worse than anybody else trying to survive? No, but they sure as hell weren't any better either.

edit: some googling and Druckmann has since provided a cleared narrative intention for Joel. The ambiguity point was about whether the player was supposed to believe (or not) that Ellie believed Joel's account of what had happened at the hospital.

And his [Joel] arc is all about this irrational love you feel for your kid - that you would do anything to take away their pain, and definitely anything in the world to save them from harm. And it's about how far this guy, who's become a father to Ellie, how far he's willing to go to save her. Clearly, he's willing to give up his life - that comes pretty easily for him because he doesn't care much about it. But then we see he's willing to give up his friends' and family's lives, or put them at risk. All these walls and defenses that he's put around himself to kind of protect his emotional state, he's willing to throw all those down and put those at risk, because it's worth it. It's worth putting that at risk to have that love of your kid, even though that you might have to deal with something horrible happening to them. And he's willing to put his soul on the line, right? Damning the rest of mankind in exchange for this girl's life.

You can see the looooong interview here. Somehow I missed this all this years.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The Fireflies killed people who disagreed with them, the game is littered with story moments establishing this, including recorders explaining that the Fireflies as an organisation were divided on what to do. The Fireflies attacked Joel and Ellie before they even knew who they were, they lied to Joel and Tess. Marlene misled them at every turn. They were not nice people. They were desperate people. Desperate people are dangerous.

Were they any worse than anybody else trying to survive? No, but they sure as hell weren't any better either.

They weren't worse, but they were certainly better. Unlike the rest, they were actively working to find a cure to attempt to save humanity and if it worked, give other communities the chance to stabilize their situation and give them a better chance to deal with marauders and actual real terrorists without having to worry about the infected or becoming infected. IMO, that's a massive world of difference for the better compared to the dregs of humanity whose only goal is to prey on others or survival communties which prey on others and justify it as allowing them to survive or even communities which attempt to avoid preying on others but still fall into conflict with roaming gangs or other survival communities.

Ellie shares much in common with the research communities in that she's willing to do whatever it takes to find a cure. Joel shares more in common with the lesser survivors who are only interested in themselves and the immediate people around them.

When all is shite, at least some are attempting to lift everyone from the shite (Ellie and the research camp) whereas others are only attempting to endure the shite (Joel and most other surviving communities) or profit from the shite (the marauders and such who delight in preying on others).

BTW - thanks for engaging in a seriously interesting conversation chain.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

They weren't worse, but they were certainly better. Unlike the rest, they were actively working to find a cure to attempt to save humanity and if it worked, give other communities the chance to stabilize their situation and give them a better chance to deal with marauders and actual real terrorists without having to worry about the infected or becoming infected. IMO, that's a massive world of difference for the better compared to the dregs of humanity whose only goal is to prey on others or survival communties which prey on others and justify it as allowing them to survive or even communities which attempt to avoid preying on others but still fall into conflict with roaming gangs or other survival communities.

The ethical and moral dicsussion of the many outweighing the needs of the few or the one, is an interesting debate. Much like the traintrack dilemma. If the vaccine was a certainty I might agree with you, but in a post-apocalyptic future, where so few people have survived, and people are still dying daily from the infected, taking even one human life is a grave decision.

To do so when the odds were so poor? The Fireflies had not plan/solution on how to mass produce a vaccine safely, they had no plan for trials or distribution. With infrastructure and scientific facilities so poor, they could have wiped out the remaining human race due to their vaccine mutating. Like I said, desperate.

Like you say, interesting discussion that continues nine years after the game launched.

 

[Grizzly Teddy]

For some reason, I'm not really for the remake that has been rumoured. I think the original is just a game that cannot be surpassed. They honestly could have just done a similar game in the same universe, with a mother and child, or something like that.

For example, Rick Grimes being played by someone other than Andrew Lincoln wouldn't feel right. So why do it to these characters?

 

[Grizzly Teddy]

Some people like games for the gameplay. Others like me appreciate having a great story to match said gameplay.

I just think the original is fine as it is. I hope Naughty Dog aren't destined to become money grabbers, much like Capcom is these days with these RE remakes that look, nor play absolutely nothing like the games they are meant to be a remake of.

The Last of Us is not just about Ellie, you know? I honestly see no need to remake the original. It could end up being a good game besides the fact it's a remake, but I just think I prefer new storylines. Even a spin off would be enjoyable.

Didn't notice I was the last poster, as the page timed out on me.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

For some reason, I'm not really for the remake that has been rumoured. I think the original is just a game that cannot be surpassed. They honestly could have just done a similar game in the same universe, with a mother and child, or something like that.

I would also rather Naughty Dog work on something new. But if The Last of Us remake is doing done by another team, who are just taking Part II mechanics and tech and making the first game better with no other changes then I would be tempted to buy it. Because the first game, which I still feel is better paced and just the right length for me, is hard to return to once you've enjoyed the mechanics of the second.

It's not surprising, The Last of Us mechanics date from 2013, and PS4 remaster did nothing to change those. Since the original game, Naughty Dog improved their tech and mechanics with Uncharted 4, The Lost Legacy and The Last of Us Part II.

 

[iceberg187]

I personally wished the first title had been this one sole story and they bever made a sequel.

Once the sequel was made, it renforced that position. Part II has great gameplay, but the story lost most of the soul and ellegance of the first. I don't expect a III to be any better.

Keep the great gameplay mechanics, and start from a blank slate with fully new characters and story. Drop the zombies, its a formulaic clutch that ND already proved not to need.

If they must stay in the dark and gritty land, do something about a civil war somewhere, or drug cartels. You can make crack-heads and opioid-adicts be your zombie-like enemy archetipe hahaha. Neal seems to like playing grownup, so do it for real then.

Wow. I've long felt that TLOU2 has better gameplay but TLOU1 is the better experience.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Wow. I've long felt that TLOU2 has better gameplay but TLOU1 is the better experience.

If you mean in terms of the story, pace, what happens and so on I completely agree. Nothing in The Last of Us feels drawn out but a bunch of places outstayed there welcome in Part II. Not in egregious JRPG grinding for ten hours, but they could have cut five hours and for me, the game would have been a lot better.

The first game is a solid 12-14 hours experience, and the second is 25-30 - depending on your play style. There is no 'guns blazing', but it can be quicker to work around some enemies than stealth kill them all at a loss of valuable resources.

 

[milk]

Like you say, interesting discussion that continues nine years after the game launched.

Exactly. The first game still spawns way more discussion than the sequel. That's because its story was focused, elegant, and poignant. The Sequel is way less powerfull because it was incapable of hitting that sweet spot again, and I always though the first should be left alone as a single masterpiece because I could already predict the sequel would not be able to hold a candle to it.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Exactly. The first game still spawns way more discussion than the sequel. That's because its story was focused, elegant, and poignant. The Sequel is way less powerfull because it was incapable of hitting that sweet spot again, and I always though the first should be left alone as a single masterpiece because I could already predict the sequel would not be able to hold a candle to it.

When I look at the first and second games. The first feels like it was trying to tell a story and the message for that story was a very human and personal one. The second to me feels more like they were trying to push a narrative and then a story was crafted around the narrative that they wanted to push. It's perhaps a subtle distinction but it may be why the first comes across as more poignant ... more human ... and hits closer to home for many.

Regards,
SB

 

[iceberg187]

This is a more nuanced take I have on it.

I never cared for Joel, I never cared that I had to use Ellie, actually preferred it because she is the most important character in the franchise. Never cared that you used Abby. Never really minded that we used Abby. Damn sure don't give a damn about the dogs. There were points in the game where there were literally perfect spots that should have been the end. Like when Ellie leaves to go after Abby one last time. That wasn't needed. She should have had closure with Dina and her baby. Ellie's campaign is top notch, Abby's is a few tiers below. In all honesty, the game's timeline should have been told in a linear fashion and not as flashbacks. By the time we got to Abby, most of us already had a decision made on her because we just got done investing 10+ hours on Ellie, building her up to the point that she can move like Sam Fisher and we know that Joel was killed by Abby. Had this been done in a linear fashion, we would have come to see Abby as more human that we come to see her in the game. By the time we use her, she's is already blinded by vengeance plus its like the game starts over again with a wack pistol. Ellie spends the first half of the game just mowing down the WLF and then Abby's side is trying to humanize them. That is weird plot structure. Characters that carried over from TLOU1 and their deaths were basically shock value deaths. No real thought put into them as they didn't impact the story in any meaningful way. TLOU2, in many ways, plays like Naughty Dog forgot why the first one was so beloved. It culminated into Joel making a moral decision that affected all of mankind, even with messed up choices like killing Marlene at the end of the game. The theme of revenge is present in the air the entire time in TLOU2 and they are just empty vessels, slaughtering everything in their path. Not to mention, TLOU1 set up the greatest thing for Ellie to see, the trade for her continuing to live life was the oppressive world that she found herself in. At no point in time, does it ever hit Ellie like 'yo, my death for the cure could have stopped all of this'. The plot and how things were presented were just messy and has holes. Like, Abby got captured at two different times but no one put a bullet in her head because they didn't recognize how dangerous she was?

I believe Joel's death was a necessary vehicle to move TLOU2 forward, I just don't agree with when or how it was presented in the game. I absolutely adored the first one (I've shown my mancave many times so if you've seen the pics, you know that Ellie and Joel hang on a canvas in the very room I'm typing all of this in) so that is why I pushed through the second one. I left the first one satisfied. I left the second one unsatisfied.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I never cared for Joel, I never cared that I had to use Ellie, actually preferred it because she is the most important character in the franchise. Never cared that you used Abby. Never really minded that we used Abby. Damn sure don't give a damn about the dogs. There were points in the game where there were literally perfect spots that should have been the end. Like when Ellie leaves to go after Abby one last time.

This is an interesting perspective. The way I view it is the first game was about Joel and Ellie, and you played mostly as Joel. The second game was about Ellie and Abby, with play time tipping slightly towards Ellie. It wouldn't surprise me if the third game switches to Abby and the whole last act of Part II is the build-up.

I think that may be why there a couple of more natural-feeling end points for the second game. I wonder if they originally intended to end it differently, then added on a mini-act which would serve as a build-up to Abby as chief protagonist, possibly also with Lev.

That wasn't needed. She should have had closure with Dina and her baby. Ellie's campaign is top notch, Abby's is a few tiers below. In all honesty, the game's timeline should have been told in a linear fashion and not as flashbacks. By the time we got to Abby, most of us already had a decision made on her because we just got done investing 10+ hours on Ellie, building her up to the point that she can move like Sam Fisher and we know that Joel was killed by Abby.

I thought the switch to Abby, to walk - literally - in the other person's shoes was brilliant. It's done been before in games but the idea that you build-up this character as the enemy, only to play as them as part of the campaign, and to realise that Abby and her faction are no better or worse than Joel and Ellie. Excellent stuff. Neil Druckmann has said something along the lines that in The Last of Us they don't like to have neatly tied-up lose ends becuase life isn't like that and post-apocalyptic-mushroom world is worse.

I agree that in gameplay terms, starting as Abby felt like being thrown backwards in capabilities and in a few places, the game re-tutorialises some basic mechanics which was weird as hell. I don't think the same story could have been told in a chronological linear way. You would have had the game opening with Abby and her father, then skip to Ellie and Joel at the museum sequence, then possibly Ellie back at the Firefly hospital then perhaps Joel and Ellie trying to cut through the hotel. With literally no context as to why you're playing seemingly random sequences. The flashbacks are all inserted at points where, narratively, that make sense to provide context but also - I think - to provide some variety in gameplay. Otherwise you have an endless 20 hour slog through Seattle.

When you go into the story, you're not supposed to know everything that was happened in the intervening years between TLoU and Part II. The major beats are there but there is no nuance, i.e. why there is tension between Joel and Ellie. The second game does exactly what the first game does, but instead of little snippets of conversation, it adds bigger playable background section.

They could have have told the story differently, but it felt very Neil Druckmann. Exactly what I would expect some somebody with heavy creative direction in Uncharted 2, The Last of Us, and Uncharted 4. Arguably, in terms of story beats, it's beginning to feel a bit predictable. I.e. Some inevitable twist, leaping back to revisit an earlier time to provide background (which they only did in the DLC in The Last of Us).