A great game, poorly written
2026年02月16日
Before anything
First of all, expect spoilers. I will try to convey my opinion while revealing as little of the story as possible, but if you haven't played The Last Of Us and The Last Of Us Part II yet, I don't recommend reading this article. I don't want to change or form anyone's opinion, and this is not a personal attack on the game or anyone involved in its production. I just want to express my honest opinion about the game. Is the game completely bad? Far from it. In fact, it's technically a masterpiece, the atmosphere, the graphics, the impressive visuals, the facial expressions, the soundtrack, all of it is top notch. But a game like The Last of Us Part II doesn't go far with just nice graphics.
The legacy of The Last Of Us
In the genre of post-apocalyptic narratives, few works have managed to portray the essence of human frailty and moral dilemmas as well as The Last Of Us. Naughty Dog not only released a technically flawless game, but also redefined the way stories can be told through the media of games. With the first game, the producer created an intimate and emotional journey that defined an entire generation of games (Uncharted 4, God of War, Detroit: Become Human, Horizon Zero Dawn), based on the connection between Joel and Ellie. The premise was not just about surviving in a decaying world, but finding purpose among the horror, the complexity of parental love, and how far people would go to protect those they love. The narrative balance between brutality and tenderness is what really made this game shine. Obviously, Naughty Dog would not let this franchise die due to its absolute success. What no one knew was how this story would continue.
Marketing issues
Naughty Dog made an effort to hide what actually happens in the game from the trailers. They cut characters, altered scenes, changed characters (Joel and Jesse on a trailer, for example), changed the age of some characters (during the flashback scenes with Ellie and Joel) giving the impression that the duo Joel and Ellie would return in the second game. And it's not like it was a matter of interpretation, or following the right clues, the producer clearly changed details that made all the difference in the end. I mean sure, the game's story was leaked even before they could announce what the plot was about, but if a game's marketing presents a story in a different way than what players received, it's still considered misleading advertising. I won't be too unfair, because at the end of the day, they are a company that needs to sell the game. If they told the truth, many people probably wouldn't buy it. But there were better ways to do this.
The premise
The Last Of Us Part II is a game that prioritizes shock value at all costs, even if it means destroying the coherence of the narrative. It attempts to convey the message that revenge is futile, but does so in a context where revenge itself seems illogical, a post-apocalyptic world, where survival and pragmatism should matter more. And it fails almost spectacularly in conveying this message without seeming forced, where everything has to happen in a precise way, leaving no room for subtleties or nuances. People who disagree with these narrative choices often have their opinions invalidated, which has greatly contributed to the division within the fandom. The characters do not have to be brilliant, as long as they make decisions that make sense within the context of the world they live in. The plot only works because the characters consistently make the worst and most illogical choices possible. Without these choices, the story wouldn't exist.
Bad timing
I think we all imagined that Joel would eventually die in The Last Of Us Part II, we just didn't know when. Joel and Tommy are two experienced survivors who decide to help a stranger. So far, so good, until Tommy inexplicably reveals their real names without knowing anything about her… and they walk into a room full of strangers and talk openly… I mean, for real? Don't you tell me they softened up after a few peaceful years in Jackson. Joel has always had a very pragmatic and inflexible sense of survival. From the early days of the outbreak (protecting Sarah and refusing to help anyone outside his family) to his journey with Ellie, he consistently demonstrates intelligence, skepticism, caution, and other attributes necessary for survival. They at least had the decency to add Joel's pragmatism in some flashbacks in Part II, showing him worried about Ellie’s two-person patrols, enforcing safety measures such as mask usage in spore zones (even though Ellie is immune) and giving clear instructions to others like Jesse. At the beginning of the game, Joel talks about what he did at the hospital, making it clear that he hasn't forgotten the risks his past decisions represent. Tommy also has the knowledge and experience to recognize the danger. He was part of the Fireflies, and knows what they are capable of if they ever find out his brother. Joel's death is not convincing because it relies on characters behaving unlike themselves for the plot to happen. Not only that, but it also weakens Joel's image and disrespects the legacy of one of the most important characters in video games. My problem isn't even with the character's death itself, in fact, if it had been done naturally and logically, his death could have made the story much better. When you suddenly kill off a character with that kind of weight, the audience stops focusing on the story and starts noticing the flaws in the script.
Everyone makes bad decisions
After Joel’s death, Tommy goes to Ellie’s house to warn her that revenge is dangerous, won’t bring Joel back, and that they should move on with their lives… only to do exactly what he told Ellie not to do moments later. Although it can be argued that he is following a "do as I say, not as I do" logic, he still sets off alone, without a plan, without support, nothing. The only clue he has about Abby’s group is symbols torn from their jackets… that's right, her group came from far away, left two witnesses, parts of the jacket as clues, all after killing one of the most important members in that settlement. Maria, Tommy's wife and leader of Jackson, discovers that Ellie and Dina plan to embark on a revenge mission across the post-apocalyptic United States, and simply… lets them go. She is fully aware of the risks of sending their best combat patrols against external threats to the settlement, she doesn't question their decision, or offer alternatives, despite being a leader and practically Ellie's aunt. The game tries to convince you that Jackson is a safe, functional, organized place… when in reality it's anything but that. In the first game, they face invaders at the hydroelectric plant, and they were prepared for it, as if it were a common occurrence. Tommy goes, and Maria lets Ellie and Dina go because the script needs that to exist, and this is a pattern that repeats itself throughout the game.
Forced empathy
After hours playing with Ellie, hunting down Abby's friends, the game takes a sharp turn and makes you play with the character who killed Joel. And not for a few minutes, but for the next half of the game. Don't get me wrong, playing with the supposed "villain" is brilliant, bold, and very cool. But like most things in this game, it's very poorly executed. The game forces you into various situations to make you empathize with Abby. For example, they throw you into her routine, introduce you to her family and allies, the dramas, the romances, all to show that in reality, they are just people. But it doesn't work, because Abby and her friends just aren't charismatic or relatable enough to stand out on their own and make you forget that this group of people killed Joel. It's such a heavy burden for such an underdeveloped group of characters. Overall, Abby's plot doesn't seem to make much sense, a huge part of her campaign has no personal motivations whatsoever. The part where she meets Yara and Lev, and Abby slowly takes on the protective role that worked so well with Joel in the first game, here it isn't explored much, despite being quite good. Still, this arc sounds like an attempt to reverse the initial bad impression of the character at all costs.
Cure? What cure?
The apocalypse in The Last Of Us started in 2013, which means mankind had 20 years deal with the Cordyceps. And suddently, they think the only possible solution is to sacrifice an unconscious girl without her consent for an experiment that MIGHT work. We know there is no advanced fungi that is able to control the nervous system of a human being in real life; it's all fiction, and we can believe in a possible cure. But even for that, it seems that a little research and development was lacking. In real life, fungi are extremely difficult to eradicate, because they have eukaryotic cells, just like humans, which means that their cells are structurally closer to ours than to those of bacteria or viruses. This makes it difficult to develop treatments that can attack the fungus without affecting the host. Developing a vaccine requires identifying molecules unique to fungi, which have a high capacity for mutation and adaptation, reducing the effectiveness of a vaccine over time. This requires constant adaptations, which are expensive and time-consuming to make. Add to that the fact that in the world of The Last Of Us, everything is scarce, costly, time-consuming, and risky. If the organization's goal was to make the world more habitable, wouldn't it make a lot more sense if the Fireflies had developed effective antifungals or sterilized environments, rather than developing a vaccine?
Not entirely bad?
There are many moments in the second game that I really enjoy. The opening is a strong transition from the first game, with Joel playing guitar and singing to Ellie, fulfilling a promise he made in the autumn, almost winter, of the previous story. On Ellie's birthday, Joel takes her to the dinosaur museum, where they explore together and go inside a spaceship, where he gives her an original recording of a rocket launch. Easily one of the best scenes in the game. Ellie and Dina's patrol that cold morning has some very nice conversations, and when Ellie explores Joel's house after his death, the game subtly reveals what he has been doing in recent years. Every detail is left for the player to interpret, without any explanatory dialogue, without expecting you to accept what just happened. Later, Ellie and Dina explore Seattle, and Ellie even plays guitar for Dina, a delicate and beautiful moment. It's moments like these that The Last Of Us Part II truly understands what worked in the first game. The problem is that these are pretty much the only moments where we have a balance of tenderness amid the brutality. The technical achievements and occasional narrative highlights do not compensate for the forced decisions made to make the script work and the superficial premise.
A sad ending
With Naughty Dog now focused on a new game franchise, it's very likely we won't see any new content related to The Last of Us anytime soon. It’s been announced that they will focus on the HBO series, but won’t be making a third game. That’s a shame, because the second game had so much potential. It could have expanded on the relationships and characters from the first game. The story could have returned to focusing on Ellie's immunity, the central narrative engine of the original game that ended up being sidelined and unresolved. Characters shouldn’t be used as tools to deliver a message. Their actions need to feel natural and consistent with who they are, their past, and the world they live in. In the end, the game chooses a direction that closed more doors than it opened, divided the fan base, and left behind an empty and purposeless story, rather than a completed one. And that is what makes it even sadder.
Much of what I have written here was based on excellent videos on the topic (It's hard to love The Last of Us Part II, by Donoghan; The Last of Us 2 is a serious mistake, by Kaballionly; and Understand why The Last of Us 2 was disappointing..., by FerdinandoTV), but I adapted their insights in my own way, highlighting the points I consider most important to discuss.