The Last of Us Part II: Deconstruction of a Narrative · 5:44pm Aug 26th, 2020

I'd like to start off by saying that from a technological and graphics standpoint this game is phenomenal and breath taking to look at especially after having played both the first game, as well as Uncharted 4, not long before picking this up. The graphics look just as good, if not better, than in Uncharted 4 and that is to this day one of the most beautiful games I've ever seen.

I needed to get that off my chest because I'm about to tear this game a new one the likes of which it has already gotten from fans the world over. To paraphrase Henry Cavill, fans aren't toxic, they're just passionate. That being said, I am very passionate about this game after seeing what the story has done to the franchise.

I'm going to spell it out simply for anyone who just wants me to get to the point; I did not enjoy this story in it's entirety and I do not think this is worthy successor to The Last of Us.

The Last of Us and The Last of Us Part II are rated M for mature, and as such this review will feature heavy language, violent rated R movie comparisons, and possibly other sensitive subject matter some readers might not find suitable if they are not used to playing or seeing rated M material. Please turn back now if that kind of material is not for you. I take no responsibility for any spoilers, hurt feelings, or crushed egos that occur after the break. Again there will be spoilers. This will be your only warning.

Section I
The Vaccine

The Last of Us is, was, and always will be a very special game that's close to my heart. I have played the first game close to nine times, several times on Normal difficulty, two or three times on Hard difficulty, and several times on the Remastered version for the PS4.

With a game like The Last of Us every time I've gone through the story, when Joel and Ellie get to the ridge overlooking Jackson, Tommy's town, I always feel a sense of satisfaction. A feeling that I'm satisfied with the story told long after my first play through when the emotional highs have long since passed me. It's a game I can play again, and again, and enjoy it each and every time. A game with a simple story, but a fantastic one nonetheless. The Last of Us Part 2, however, is a completely different story, for better or worse, in more ways than one.

Part II follows a similar simple narrative. After being traumatized by the death of her father figure, Joel, Ellie ventures out to the city of Seattle seeking vengeance on the person who caused her so much pain; Abby. This is a story of hatred, the cycle of violence, and revenge. These are nothing new to any one who has been keeping tabs on the follow-up to one of the best games ever made on the PlayStation 3, however the writer and director of the second installment, Neil Druckmann, has gone well out of his way to not deliver on what a story of vengeance promises.

I need to explain something first, when writing in any genre, be it revenge, horror, or treasure hunting, a writer is expected to do certain things. It makes no sense for someone to write a heist story that doesn't at the very least revolve around a heist. It makes no sense to make a horror story, but focus on the one person who left before the slashing starts then has a seemingly normal life that borderlines a slice-of-life story. It makes no sense to write a revenge story, slaughter dozens upon dozens of people, and then let the main target go because character X has some sort of philosophical awakening that "revenge is bad." Storytelling does not work like that unless it's set up properly, and this game does none of that correctly. This game is a slap in the face to the original in almost every way aside from the few flashbacks with Joel and Ellie, but even then there is one flashback that is a knee to the dick of the original.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself, lets start near the beginning of the game, back in Jackson. The player picks up Part II roughly five years after the events of the first game. Joel and Ellie have long since settled into a life of normalcy, or what passes for normal in the infected world, and all seems well. I say everything seems well, but the game opens with Joel confessing to Tommy about a choice he made years ago.

Remember this choice is the shaky foundation of a lynchpin that this story uses to vilify Joel for killing the surgeon (Abby's dad) and justify other story purposes.

Joel's choice; Let the Fireflies kill Ellie in an attempt to forge a vaccine, or take her away, back to Tommy's, and lie about what happened.

Joel's Lie

We found the Fireflies. Turns out, there's a whole lot more like you, Ellie. People that are immune. It's dozens actually. Ain't done a damn bit of good either. They've actually st- They've stopped looking for a cure. I'm taking us home. I'm sorry.

In between the ending of Part I and the beginning of Part II, Ellie goes back to the Saint Mary's Hospital, the hospital where Joel kills the Fireflies, and where she was to be operated on. Bear in mind this flashback takes place far into the main story line because the game jumps back and forth between present day gameplay and flashbacks quite often. It comes off a bit disjointed now that I think about it, but I'll try to keep things as clear as I can.

Ellie finds a recorder at the hospital with a diary entry from a former Firefly. Here's the message:

I was one of the ones that wanted to go after the smuggler and the girl. They said...Even if we found her, or by some miracle found someone else that's immune, it'd make no difference. 'Cause the only person that could develop a vaccine is dead.

Here's my first problem. The vaccine isn't going to happen. I even asked a microbiologist in 2019 that had, at that point in time, twenty five (possibly more) years experience, if a vaccine could be made based on the information that was given. Their answer was that, in their world, it's possible, but someone would have to find a way to either grow Ellie's mutation, as it's fungus related thus can be grown, in the lab or have multiple test subjects. And since the mutation can be grown in a laboratory setting it would mean Ellie doesn't need to die.

Furthermore the surgon admits in a recording (in the first game) that they would need to be able to replicate what happened to Ellie under laboratory conditions. So if they had killed her and only had that one sample they most likely would not have found a vaccine. In short; the Fireflies were stroking the dick of their ego.

There are people that often like to quote that same recording I'm thinking of, which also states, "The girl's infection is like nothing I've ever seen. The cause of her immunity is uncertain. As we've seen in past cases." There is more to that quote, but blogs have a limited amount of words and I wont waste them on science exposition. That quote seems to have two arguments, one being it means there are more immune people like Ellie, and the other being that it's referring to other general infected people who eventually turn, which makes sense as the test subjects would be freshly infected people. I would lean more towards the latter opinion, but as it stands that quote would need more context then what's given in the game as it doesn't give a definitive heads or tails and just leads to an "Who Perceived it Right" argument.

My point is that there are many, many problems in the way of making a vaccine, and the Fireflies were going to kill Ellie right away with what sounds like hardly any tests ran, or at least not enough to figure out all of their options. There's also the fact that as of Part I it's been 20 years since the initial outbreak. A vaccine is not going to fix the behavior of; the hunters, the cannibals, the WLF, the cult, the already infected people from stalkers to bloaters, and all the complexities that come with mass producing it. Also that vaccine needs to be tested, there's a reason we don't get vaccines right away, to bypass all the testing stages would be highly irresponsible.

Marlene once said, "How long before she's torn apart by a pack of clickers? That is if she hasn't been raped and murdered first," and to that I would ask how Ellie's sacrifice would fix the above scenarios. It wouldn't.

I'd also like to point out that scientists will need more than one doctor to pull a vaccine off, the message above implies there was only one person that could do so who apparently wrote nothing down, but the game shows a few other, older, looking doctors during Abby's gameplay. Which is it? Do we have only one young looking doctor that can make a cure, or do we have multiple doctors who could forge an answer together?

Don't answer that, because it's a poorly done contrivance.

(Ellie learns the truth)

(Joel kills Marlene)

Ellie then gets mad at Joel when he tells her the truth, but there's a problem with this. The length of this conversation between them alone should be enough to rename this game The Last of Us Part II: Nuance Be Damned. This conversation between these two is basically Ellie saying, "Tell me the truth," and Joel responding with, "I stopped them from killing you." The End.

A conversation like this requires a lot of nuance and perspective. I understand that the above summary isn't word-for-word verbatim of what they said, but again, this conversation needs to be far longer as well as possibly even being shown during game play as well. Ellie needs to be willing to listen, not be prepared to ditch Joel after hearing his side of things. For any one that doesn't know there is a difference between listening and hearing. Joel needs to go into the specifics of why he saved Ellie from the Fireflies, and, yes, I said saved because that is exactly what he did.

Joel would need to explain that the Fireflies had no idea what they were doing, that a vaccine was a long shot, and using my point from above, he would need to tell Ellie that the Fireflies weren't going over every possibility and placing an urgency of time on themselves that really isn't needed to develop the equivalent of penicillin in their world. Ellie also needs to understand something else; Joel did take away Ellie's decision to chose what she wanted to do, but the Fireflies pendulum swung in the other direction, which means they were doing the same thing Joel did.

It's never out right stated in Part I, but based on the conversation in the car it sounded like Ellie doesn't remember what happened post-nearly-drowning. After replaying Part II a cut scene reveals Ellie never asked the Fireflies any questions. This could mean Ellie was sedated after Joel was knocked out, or she woke up, and was then prepped for surgery without giving consent. This raises questions to how things unfolded.

"But, O'Conner, you incompetent consumer of narrative, it's okay because Ellie already said she wanted to see it through to the end," the deceptively polite troll in my head whispers into my ear. Ellie also proposed Joel teach her how to swim after they were done, so that point is moot.

But, yes, it's true that Ellie wanted to see things through, and that their trip to the hospital couldn't be for nothing, but we don't know if she was told everything, let alone being told she would die to even get an attempt to forge a vaccine. Just because being sacrificed for a cure aligns with what she previously said to Joel doesn't change the fact that we never see her get all the information, and if she got all the information, who is to say she would make the ultimate sacrifice? As I said, nuanced be damned in this game.

In closing to this section, nuance needs to be written into this conversation, Ellie needs to be told; (1) that Fireflies knocked out Joel (the Firefly soldiers should have known who they were), (2) confirmed if Ellie was given all the information about what making a vaccine would cost, (3) confirm she was given a choice to make, (4) and Ellie needs to know Marlene ordered a soldier to point a gun at Joel with shoot-for-any-reason orders (and possibly send him out of the hospital without his stuff). The last thing Ellie needs to be told, and perhaps the most important one, (5) Joel needs to look Ellie in the eyes and tell her that he is sorry for taking that choice away from her, that the Fireflies, and Marlene, were doing no different then what he was doing, but if she still wants to sacrifice herself for the chance of getting a vaccine then he will stop at nothing to help her find another doctor who can operate on her, if that is truly what she wants, and if it will make her happy, he'll do it.

Section II
The Death of Joel Miller

It's not what Part II did that angers me so, it's who they did to, why, and how it was done. The person they killed wasn't some fucking nobody. That nobody was Joel Miller. He once was an associate of the Fireflies. Known to them as The Smuggler. Well, Joel wasn't exactly a smuggler, he was a man you sent to get the job done.

Joel is a man or survival. Job commitment. Distrusting of others he doesn't know despite working with them. And can see an obvious trap. A man of sheer focused willpower when it comes to protecting those he loves. These are things a vast majority of people know very little about.

I once saw him decimate an entire floor of armed soldiers in a hospital with nothing but outclassed guns and jury rigged bombs. But suddenly one day he decides to fight back against the Fireflies. Of course it's over a little girl. That day he wiped out the soldiers in the hospital was the day he left with his new daughter to live out their lives in Jackson County.

It's been five years since the day Joel and Ellie moved into Jackson. At this point in time Joel has become a real dad. He goes fishing, hunting, has a wood shop room for carving figurines, and he even has a portion of that same room dedicated to fixing up guitars he's found. Joel has finally found a new normal in the infected world and that life soon comes to a screeching halt when he saves a woman named Abby.

There's a phrase a drunken man I know once used that will be a reoccurring theme for Section II of this critique, and that phrase is called; Slow Burn Stupidity. This term can basically be summed up with the following quote from him, "It doesn’t leap out at the person straight away like an obvious plot hole or crazy event that makes no sense. But it creates a gnawing feeling at the back of the person’s mind that something isn’t quite right. A feeling that slowly grows the more you think about it. That’s usually a sign someone is acting out of character."

Please watch the first video before reading on. Below it is a video that goes into further detail regarding what else was wrong with Joel's death that I just can't cover in this critique.

I need to preface this again by saying, and I can't stress this enough, I am not upset that Joel died I am upset because of how he died. At first glance most people wont notice the subtle yet deliberate rule breaking this story does, and the worst part of it all is that this story will still be regarded as an undeserved master class of storytelling.

As the Continental's Winston once said in John Wick 2, "Rules, without them, we live with the animals." Yes, fiction has rules, and when it comes to writing, a storyteller needs to know how and when to use these rules to forge their story. I don't believe in the phrase, "you need to know the rules before you can break the rules," because you aren't breaking the rules, you're actually substituting one rule out for something else.

One of the two main things this death scene does is assassinate the character integrity of Joel, and there are other stories out there that blatantly shit all over an already established character, such as Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi, so this is nothing new however this time it was enough to have me gritting my teeth at the huge amount of disrespect Joel was shown.

Character integrity is essentially making sure character X is behaving as they have already been established to behave. In Joel's case it would mean reverting back to his paranoia from when he was a smuggler and hunter. In the first game he tells Ellie he was on both sides, meaning he has been on both the receiving and giving end of a hunter ambush. In Part II, Joel and Tommy go off with Abby after saving her life and stay at a well guarded cabin during a blizzard that blew into the area. And then from there the brothers ignore all the red flags going on, such as a group being near their area that wasn't there before in a cabin with running electricity.

The second main thing this scene does is break the Internal Consistency of the first game. Internal Consistency is the rule or rules a writer sets forth within their first installment of a franchise or series.

Remember that hunters, or at least another group, attacked Joel and Tommy while they were searching for Ellie in Part I. Then later on when Joel is called out on his standoffish nature with Ellie they are attacked at the ranch house by what I assume are the same people looking to pay Joel and Tommy back. Groups like these exist and for both brothers to be this trusting of any new groups in the area is stupid, yes, I am aware that Jackson has brought in groups that were nice, but this is no reason to be so trusting that they trust every person that walks into their territory. See what I mean about characters being infected with Slow Burn Stupidity?

A good number of people try to claim that Joel trusted Henry in Part I. That's a fair point, but Henry left Joel for dead when things got tough. And due to the fact the Hunters far out numbered Joel and Ellie in men, as well as raw fire power as seen by the turret-truck, he didn't really have much of a choice. And as Henry pointed out, "they don't keep kids around," so it was a slightly safer bet to trust them in getting out. Henry also had a plan for getting out of the city, which at that point in time was better than nothing. I'm willing to bet Joel and Tommy could have found a place to lay low that didn't involve them walking right into a group that outnumbers them in a closed off area. Remember there are reasons why Joel went along with Henry, and while it can be argued these same reasons exist for why he rode off with Abby, they had more options than in the situation with Henry thus the argument becomes moot.

And I'd like to add another point to this. Joel never gives his name to Henry, Ellie blurts it out because Sam has a gun pointed at him. Henry just happened to over hear Joel's name. Here's a video to prove it.

They have absolutely no reason to lie about their names. Tommy is the one who told Abby their names. It would've been weird for Joel to say a different name in the lodge. Abby knew already.

That's a quote from a comment. I'd like to point out why this defense is bad. In that order; Bull shit, they don't know these people and Joel has crossed a lot of people including killing a small group of hunters in that area while looking for Ellie five years prior. Tommy grew up surviving so he shouldn't be that trusting, nor was he when Joel first showed up at Jackson, remember Joel was greeted with guns at his face. Regardless of if Tommy gave Abby their names during the heat of battle, or after the fact, it's still the same level of stupid and doesn't absolve the story of this criticism.

Other players are being willfully ignorant by saying things such as, "but in the real world people get unsatisfying deaths all the time." A good point, but a writer needs to build up events correctly so that even if something the reader doesn't like happens they can still be satisfied.

For example, I don't like that Tony Stark and Natasha Romanoff died in Endgame, however, I'm still satisfied with how they died that I'm not bothered by it. I don't like that John Marston and Arthur Morgan died, but their deaths were built up in a very satisfying way.

Troy Baker (Joel's V.A.) once said the players de-vilified, glorified, then hero-fied Joel, and eventually absolved him of his sins. I can say with certainty that I did not do that. Joel did a lot of bad things, however, saving Ellie from being a martyr was not a villainous thing nor should it be considered as such. I find it hilarious how a lot of people that argue that Part II is a master class in storytelling tend to overlook how evil the Fireflies were and that they did the same thing Joel did; take Ellie's choice away. The only difference was Joel saved her from becoming a martyr for a shaky cause. This one act doesn't change the fact Joel has done horrible things as it's implied via dialogue in the first game.

It's not that we as an audience saw Joel as being heroic, no one ever said Joel was a hero, and if they did, they are wrong. We saw him as a fully fleshed out character who was doing what he thought was right. That's why we loved Joel as a character. The audience asked for a satisfying death, not a heroic one, there's a big difference between the two and if anyone wants to argue with me over that I would suggest they learn more about writing to distinguish between them.

That being said, I'd like to focus on a very important aspect of this section as well as why I picked The Death of Superman cover art to represent this section of my critique. Neil Drukmann, Ashley Johnson (Ellie V.A.), Troy Baker, and a woman named Alanah Pearce have made comments about how Joel got what he deserved. They are entitled to their opinions however I've noticed a common misconception among them all in that they all seem to confuse a heroic death for a satisfying one, which does aggravate me to an extent.

By using The Death of Superman cover art I've made it so that if any one tries to comment on how I didn't understand Joel's death I'll know they didn't read much past that point because I deliberately picked a picture to make it seem like I saw Joel as a hero when I never did. I had to hide my reasoning for this further down, but now I can dive into Heroic Versus Satisfying Deaths to show how they aren't one and the same.

Often times it seems that people associate a character doing good things, and then dying, to be a heroic death. This couldn't be further from the truth. A good example of a heroic death would be Tony Stark using the Infinity Stones in Endgame before he died using them, or Natasha Romanoff trading her life for the soul stone. Or another example would be the death of Spiderman during Into the Spiderverse. These deaths were satisfying because they featured a hero going the greatest distance to protect people.

A satisfying death on the other hand can take many different forms. Some of the best deaths I've ever seen in my years of gaming came from bad people. In Red Dead Redemption, John Marston gets gunned down by lawmen after he brought in his former gang members in exchange for his freedom. In Red Dead 2, Arthur Morgan dies on a mountain top looking out at the sunrise after Micah Bell beat him within an inch of his life, also Arthur had tuberculosis that had severally sickened him over time. Micah, a character I love to hate, died at my gun, and I won't lie, it felt good getting justice for Arthur. Look at Dutch Van der Linde, if someone lines up both games his death is not only sad but really satisfying when we see his life style brought about his end. Lastly, David in Part I had an amazing death at blade of his machete thanks to Ellie bashing his face in.

All of those deaths used different storytelling rules to achieve their results, but they were all still satisfying. These deaths also have a lot in common to, look at each of these characters, the one thing they have in common is that they are technically bad people. Yes, some are more bad than others, such as David, Dutch, and Micah, but to say any of these characters are heroes would be a truly ignorant statement.

I believe the reason some perceive John and Arthur to have heroic deaths is because they died doing good things. John died protecting his family, which was also part of the Van der Linde gang, before being gunned down. Arthur died making sure John got to his family and held off Micah from going after John after the gang fell apart. Just because a character does good things right before their death doesn't mean they're suddenly a hero. Both John and Arthur were on a redemption path, hence the name of the game having Redemption in the titles, but even if they both were redeemed this would only put them on the path to becoming a hero. And to become a hero they would possibly need to go on the Heroes Journey (H.J.), which neither of these characters did.

Speaking of that cycle, I once read an article title that said Joel went on a H.J., which would be completely absurd to anyone that even knows how to use that tool correctly. Here's a hint, there's nothing circular about Joel's journey in the first game, there's a reason why the H.J. is a circle in the first place. A character doesn't need to be a hero to go on this journey either, remember that Thanos went on this journey and he was by no means a hero. Now lets talk about subverting expectations.

That's how good the story telling is, how well you are able to connect and empathize with the characters. I don't think I've ever been this attached to characters in any medium (literary, cinematic, or gaming) as I was to the characters in this series

The above quote was pulled from one of the videos I was viewing while doing research for this critique. And it makes me flabbergasted that this is what some consider to be good storytelling. This is the exact opposite of good storytelling. Subverting expectations and trying to deconstruct narrative just for the sake of it is bad. Trying to re-frame Joel as a bad guy is an abhorrently awful attempt at deconstructing a narrative.

To add to that point, these characters are terrible, especially Abby, Owen, and Mel who have this love triangle going on that just paints all of them in a crummy light. A character can be bad and still be likable because they are bad, just look at Micah, or Dutch, we love to hate them, but these newer characters are just terrible.

Trying to subvert someone's expectations by breaking the pre-established rules for a genre is bad. It's breaking the cycle that these stories are supposed to go through by nature of whatever genre they are working in. In order to subvert expectations correctly a person needs to introduce another story mechanic that can help someone achieve this.

For example, in the last Harry Potter movie it is set up so that Harry "dies," and then when given a choice to join Voldemort's side, Neville Longbottom gives a speech before pulling out the sword of Gryffindor from the old sorting hat. If Harry had stayed dead it is established someone else would rise up to take down Voldemort because a writing mechanic was already set up to finish the journey.

Or to quote an excellent YouTube comment, "Look at My Hero Academia for example with the character Bakugou, he’s prideful bloodthirsty mean and aggressive typically not good traits for a hero, but the series always a good hero never gives up and should always have a smile on his face. Bakugou whenever he fights always has a smile, albeit a violent one but a smile none the less, and a prideful person isn’t the type to give up. That’s how to subvert expectations do it in a unique way."

Or, as a last example, In Batman: The Telltale Series we are given control of a younger Bruce Wayne. We go through his origin, which has been done to death by now, you know the one, the one where he tragically loses his parents in an alleyway. I'm tired of seeing it because it never changes. But Telltale managed to put their own spin on this origin. Instead of Thomas Wayne being a good man, he was essentially a crime boss, which means the Wayne's billions came from some not so legal operations. However while the beginnings of the Wayne's legacy isn't that great, when Bruce took over he helped forge a new path that helps put Wayne Industry into the familiar light we are used to seeing it in. This is again how you subvert expectations correctly.

Joel is a beloved character, he is not perfect, however if someone is going to write his downfall I expect it to be better than watching Abby's PGA Tour: Joel-in-One Edition.

In closing to this Section, I want people to remember this, Character Integrity and Internal Consistency are what ruined this death. Following those two points would be pacing and a few other issues, but those are the ones I want you to take away from this critique.

Joel Miller, I raise my glass to you, sir, you will be missed.

Section III

The Failed Revenge Story

When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I'll be waiting.

Allow me to paint a picture for you dear reader. Imagine for a moment if John Wick, after mowing down enemy after enemy, gets to the man that killed his dog but then lets him go. Envisage, Iniago Montoya giving his speech then sparing the man who killed his father. Visualize Kill Bill, and instead of killing Bill, The Bride decides to raise their child together after everything he and his group did to her.

Envision Kratos after decimating the entire Greek pantheon, spares Zeus. Or, how about after everything Handsome Jack did in Borderlands, Lilith (or the vault hunter) decides to spare him. Picture Nick Hume in Death Sentence not killing the gang that murdered his son, and wife, in cold blood.

The way the game ends would be as if Furious 7 ended in the following manner. After beating Shaw within an inch of his life, Dom lets him go, but when Dom returns home he finds out everyone that was helping him is dead, except for Letty who ran off on him, took everything but Dom's Charger, which is now ruined, but even if it wasn't, Dom wouldn't be able to drive it because he is now paralyzed from the waist down.

Or, how about if Avengers Infinity War ended with the Avengers thanking Thanos for his great sacrifice and bearing the heavy burden of balancing all life in the universe?

Or, better yet, imagine if John Marston spares Micah after he beat Arthur to death, and in this scenario he also kills Sadie and Charles just before this encounter. Just picture that for a moment. Wouldn't that feel very unsatisfying?

This is how it feels watching Ellie let Abby go after Abby has killed Joel and bitten off Ellie's fingers, then seeing Ellie return to her empty home. This ending was not being insightful, it was not enlightening, it was a hack writer acting smarter than they actually are.

Someone defending this story might try to argue that I can't compare these stories to one another due to X reason, when I actually can. This is when themes become important, because these stories share revenge as a theme, and this similarity allows us to see how other writers did it.

It's one of the reasons you can point out something that did X right and say, "Look there's a good example on how you do X." And if you can't point stuff out like that then what's the point in talking about stories regardless of the medium?

Druckmann said this story is about forgiveness, and I can't really speak to much on that as I firmly believe this is a revenge story as it was built and falsely advertised as such, but if it is about forgiveness I'd like to point out a show that did it better; Avatar: The Last Airbender. The entire Southern Raiders episode is how you do "forgiveness" correctly. I am aware that Katara didn't "forgive" her mother's killer, but she did let him go, it's close enough.

I will say this though. If someone builds a story correctly then the structure and mechanics used in it should be more than enough to prove what the story is about.

It seems to me that the message of this story is "revenge is bad" and if that is so then both Red Dead 1 & 2, and the entire John Wick franchise did this far better.

John Marston is eventually found after he killed Micah. Then becomes the government's dog to earn his freedom only to be killed by the government, because John was the last enemy that needed to be destroyed.

John Wick, after taking revenge for his dead dog, is pulled back into the assassin world thanks to Santino D'Antonio. Then John kills D'Antonio, after surviving encounters with several assassins said person sent after John, which leads to the opening chase sequences for the third movie. Then the audience is reminded it's only been two weeks since the first movie started. Both of these got their message across very well and far better then Part II did.

Now when writing a revenge tale a writer does need to take away things from their character as time goes on. Revenge comes at a cost. This is an unspoken law of revenge. Your character doesn't have to lose everything, but they need to lose something. Here's a score board for what the two protagonist lose.

Score Board:
Ellie loses: Dina and the baby, Joel, Jessie, damages her relationship with Tommy, her two fingers, the ability to play the guitar for the most part, and her knife.
Abby loses: Owen, Mel, Yara, Manny, and the WLF.

However, if we factor in that Abby was already thinking about leaving the WLF, and that Mel wasn't really a friend to her, and her relationship with Yara had only just started, these things she's lost don't have the same gravity that Ellie's losses had. So things aren't balanced between them in the slightest, especially when Abby is basically getting a second chance to become a better person so soon.

To balance things out between them Abby has to either lose Lev or never make it to the Fireflies on Catalina island. And since I'm talking about balance this seems like a good way to move into my next topic.

The MCU Argument
Perfectly balanced as all things should be.

An argument I often hear in defense of this story is that it isn't designed to be enjoyed and ends in a way that the audience won't like. Others argue that the game creates this uncomfortable feeling where you don't know who you want to see win and was made that way intentionally.

Hogwash. The four Marvel movies directed by the Russo Brothers, one Christopher Nolan movie, and one Star Wars movie is all I need to dispel this argument once and for all.

In a podcast with Troy Baker and Alanah Pearce, roughly 23 minutes in, Mike uses Infinity War and Endgame as a comparison to Part II, he says, "It opens with like 40 minutes of it's about the end of the world, but as an audience member you know it's not, like, you know that, like, we're in an Avengers movie." and I don't even know how he says this with a straight face.

Each one of the Russo directed MCU movies has not had a traditional happy ending and each one has been very well received. They know how to deconstruct narrative the correct way in that the audience will get their seemingly happy ending just not in the way the audience expected.

Russo Movie Endings:
Winter Soldier ends with S.H.I.E.L.D ruined. Bucky runs away.
Civil War ends with the Avengers in shambles! Captain America gives up the shield.
Infinity War starts with the Avengers separated, they stay mostly separated, and ultimately lose the war to Thanos when he snaps his fingers.
Endgame ends with the snap reversed, but Loki and Heimdall are still dead, Natasha gave up her life for the soul stone, Gamora is back but her character has been reset to the first Guardians movie, and Tony sacrificed his life to use the infinity stones.

I count four movies in that paragraph that didn't end on an entirely happy note. That's how someone subverts expectations, those examples are how to properly deconstruct narrative, that's how someone makes an enjoyable story that still ends with a shattered base, that's how someone writes good stories.

People try and meta-game a story, which is a term my animation teacher in high school used whenever his morning D&D session tried to give advice to his noon session about the story to make it easier. Someone is jumping to the end of the story and acting like they know what's going to happen while also ignoring how the characters get there. This is different than using examples from the actual story to make an educated guess.

That guy in the podcast, as well as others, try to use the same examples against the people that are critiquing the game. The problem with using these examples is that people like him bring in their own misguided view of what that story actually was. Most stories, as well as the best ones, are usually fairly straight forward. For example, trying to make Kill Bill out to be anything more than what it was or ever will be, which is a grandiose revenge tale.

I've even seen Kill Bill, Red Dead, and God of War all used against the very same arguments I've made here today, and while they were a decent attempt each argument failed to address proper use of story mechanics like I've been mentioning here. My point is that these are the kinds of people parading around like they know what they're talking about when they don't.

The fact that so many people are split on part 2 and debating different things about the game shows Neil drunkman is a master story teller, even if you hate his guts with a passion.

And this is one of the arguments I copy/pasted from YouTube specifically because it defends the game badly. Just look at Captain America: Civil War. That movie has both Ironman and Cap fighting each other at the end. Remember how at the beginning of The MCU Argument one of the complaints I mentioned was that the game tried to make the audience uncomfortable not knowing who to root for, well, Civil War did that, but far better. Not only did I, and many others, find it hard to watch these two heroes beat the crap out of each other we also found it very enjoyable. Not only was it a satisfying story it was so good it went on to be one of the best MCU movies out there even with it having lasting consequences.

Not all games will be happy or rewarding story wise. This game dared to be different than most others when there isn't a lot of hard to swallow games.

Yet some how Infinity War did this and was still considered a fantastic movie. In fact it might still be considered to be the best movie the MCU has produced. It ended with half of all life being decimated at the snap of Thanos' fingers, and I, along with many others, went back to see that movie more than once. Empire Strikes Back also ended with the good guys losing and that movie is still widely regarded as one of the best films of all time!

I can go even further than that. Look at Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight . Batman goes on the run and is considered to be a villain, because while he might have won the battle the bad guy won the war. Part II shot for the stars and failed to replicate what these films did.

Remember when I mentioned that Part II falsely advertised itself as a revenge story, well, I've got a few more words on that. The sad truth is that when a product is good, such as Empire Strikes Back, Back to the Future, Mission Impossible: Fallout, or Infinity War, a creator can lie about certain things to throw the audience off of the real story, and when that product is good, any small plot holes or minor inconsistencies can be brushed off because the product is so good the audience doesn't care, but when the product in question is bad the plot holes and inconsistencies just add more gasoline the hellfire it started. And this is precisely what Part II does, it isn't a good story product, so do to the nature of a bad product all of the things people might over look, such as characters acting out of character, are going to be more glaringly obvious and bring in more criticism.

For example, Ellie tells Abby that there's no cure because of her, but Ellie is never told on screen what Abby's motivation was, I don't even think Abby's dad is brought up to Ellie once. This can be considered a plot hole, but the fact of the matter is Ellie could have been told this off screen, but since we the audience are never shown it we can't perceive it even if we use the Missing Narrative tool the Russo Brothers used in Endgame with Captain Marvel. It doesn't work here.

That's a deleted Tweet that Neil Drukmann posted about the story. Look, paying off things you built up isn't pandering. Just listen to how disappointed Star Wars fans are about how the Disney trilogy never had a scene with Luke, Leia, and Han getting together again on screen. That's a huge disservice to the series. Things will happen along the way to those built up moments, yes, but that should make your good moments stand out even more.

Also, if we look at Endgame, yes, we get a lot of characters back, but we lose Natasha, and we lost our original Gamora. I'm sure some people would also argue that Captain America wielding Mjolnir is just fan service, much like what Neil seems to think pandering is, but when you build up your story right you might just get this kind of response.

*Turn volume down.

To bring everything back together, see what I mean about when I say stories don't need to have happy endings and still be satisfying. Some of the best movies of all time have had endings that are satisfying yet the heroes still lose, if that doesn't prove my point I don't know what will.

If I haven't already said it, I'm a complete novice at storytelling and slowly working on getting better, but even I can see that Part II's ending is poorly done. And, lastly, I want all of you reading to remember this.

Just because someone can use writing terminology in a sentence does not mean they can properly break down a story. It takes months of practice to do so and much longer to understand how these pieces, these mechanics, go together to form a working coherent story. And just because someone can parrot a definition doesn't mean they know how to apply it in practice.

Characters

I'm not saying these characters don't have at least one thing to like about them, however, one interesting thing about them isn't enough to make them good character amid a sea of terrible qualities. Likewise going through the motions of their every day life isn't enough to get me interested in a character unless it's a character I'm already interested in. And that last sentence would be the crux of a writer's problem, how do you get the audience interested in a character. A good question indeed.

*How not to make a new character

Abby: Had fun beating people with those giant hams she calls biceps. Her biceps are not possible in their world, she would need steroids or testosterone boosts, and that is a legit criticism for a game trying to ground itself. She's a hypocrite, much like her father, and possible psychopath without justification. Flat character. Has vertigo. Saves two kids for some reason. Lets Ellie and Tommy live for unknown reasons. She killed Joel to avenge her father, but if we look at The Vaccine section we know he was a shitty person so her motivation falls flat.

Mel: She deliberately goes out on patrol, while heavily pregnant, is climbing around getting into gun fights, again while pregnant, and no one questions the morality of this. No, she would be benched until after gives birth whether she likes it or not. This is also highly irresponsible for someone that's supposed to be a rather smart individual. Yes, I understand she was just being transferred to another base, but the area is filled with infected and people looking to kill your faction, which means Mel needs to stay in the stadium. Also, she died of her own stupidity, had she not foolishly attacked Ellie with a knife I'm willing to bet that Ellie would have let her be once she got the information she wanted. No, I don't blame Ellie for Mel's consistently reckless behavior, or as the Joker might put it, Mel got what she fucking deserved. Awful character, no argument to be had about it.

Owen: Got Mel pregnant, seems to be in a relationship with her, but still goes on to have sex with Abby. And even if Owen and Mel aren't in a relationship it doesn't help his case because he is contemplating ditching the woman he got pregnant. He is stuck in a Lose-Lose situation. And some how this story, and it's characters, are supposed to be mature.

Manny: He was okay. I liked when Tommy blew his brains out. He was smart knowing Tommy would be waiting behind the door for them. That's all I got.

Yara and Lev: Both were flat characters. I did laugh my butt off when Lev questioned Abby about Owen on the cranes.

Dina: She was okay, but a big poser. It always felt like she was trying to one-up Ellie. Also, I don't know where some people get this idea, but Dina never gave Ellie an ultimatum about leaving. I have re-watched the night scene on the farm several times and not once does Dina give Ellie a choice. Dina saying, "prove it," is not enough to support that claim. Either give her the choice verbally, and clearly, or you never said it.

*Please watch

Fat Geralt: Best character in the game without question. Just Some Guy already said it best, "He knocked the puberty out that kid. I could laugh at this scene for hours. It's never not going to be funny. Big Daddy Cool for the win."

Closing Thoughts

It starts as Terminator: Dark Fate, turns into The Last Jedi, and ends like Game of Thrones season 8. As someone else once said, it's a game about right and wrong written by people who think they're always right. And I had to play it twice to make this blog.

There is so much more I could talk about here, but I really don't want to make a second blog on this story, and I think I've done a decent enough job getting most of my thoughts down. I have at least another five thousand words that I just couldn't fit in.

Such as:
Blatant psychological manipulation. Breaking the rule of perception multiple times. Telling rather than showing. Flashbacks show a better story than what we got. Poor organization of story events. Abundantly useless themes. Surface level fluff. Over reliance of shock and surprise rather than suspense, tension, and substance. That last one I'd specifically have to reference Alfred Hitchcock to prove, and if I'm being honest when I whip-out Hitchcock I've already won the argument.

Or, to quote Captain America.

Like I've demonstrated here, once people start pulling on the threads, and the mechanics, of what makes this story tick it begins to unravel itself into a huge mess because there are to many mechanics either grinding up against each other to work or the parts don't go together with what was already set up previously. Yes, it's true this game made me feel a lot of emotions, however they were for all the wrong reasons which seems to go over everyone's head when defending this game.

To tell me that I'm only complaining about this story because it didn't go exactly how I wanted, or theorized it to go, is to not only spit in my face, but all also spit on the numerous hours I've spent learning how to properly break down stories into their basic components.

If anyone truly wants to experience mature stories go watch Bojack Horseman and Infinity Train as they tackle mature subject matter better then Part II ever did or ever will.

In closing, I have to judge The Last of Us Part II for what it is rather then what it could have been or by what the writers original intentions were. All the themes, metaphors, parallels, and symbolism in the world can't save a poorly written story with bad contrivances around many corners, as well as being filled with contradictory messages. Some of the characters are decent, but a vast majority of them either do to many bad things that can't be made up for or just fall flat by being rather bland and forgettable.

I rate this story a 4 out of 10, one of the lowest scores I've ever given a story, and the only reason I'd mark it any higher is because I really liked how some scenes were shot, but just having a nicely shot cut scene or two won't get a good review out of me. As a drunk man once said, that's all I've got for today, go away now.