I've just completed the game so I thought I'd write up my initial thoughts, in part to counter the ridiculous backlash it has received. It really is a shame that the leaks occured and prevented so many people from enjoying this game spoiler free. Or just flat-out refusing to give it a chance. The metacritic review bombing is childish, and so boringly predictable with it. It says more about outrage culture than anything else, and the lack of nuance allowed in mainstream entertainment.
We're not 'owed' anything, in terms of story. So what Naughty Dog have done here, on the back of a very simple story in Part 1, is tell a story
they wanted to tell. Not only that, but they have done it more intelligently. Both parts share the fact that they are essentially character-driven narratives, which is always the best basis for a successful story. When I saw in the leaks that you ended up playing as Joel's murderer, my first instinct was how bold a choice that was. While others were upset, I was more intrigued by the fact that they had made this choice in the first place, and that it wouldn't be a rote action sequel. ND were going to try something
different, and I applauded that, while also being intrigued about whether they could pull it off, because if not, then yes, it really would fall flat.
So, you play as Joel's murderer and the challenge ND set themselves was to turn around the player's viewpoint so far that you might begin to empathise or even like this new Abby character. BOLD. Know what may have been bolder? Player choice at the end, and an in-built prompt that told ND the result. Did the player choose to kill Abby, or let her go? The results would've been interesting, and may even have validated their story choice to an extent.
But this isn't the player's journey. So having that option taken out of your hands, much like at the end of part 1, just emphasises that point. These aren't your characters. They're not mine. We're watching what they do. Good entertainment often makes us squirm, or uncomfortable - not enough games do that, so to have one that does, and may even make you want to turn off, is a brave developer choice. People can be mad about it; see the leaks and boycott it, but this boldness is something missing from what has become more and more an adult medium. More adults play games than children, so to have a mainstream game that challenges in terms of story, and not just violence, gore, gameplay and puzzles, is welcome.
Do they pull it off? In the final standoff, would I have let Abby go or kill her? I would've let her go. Without experiencing Abby's arc, would I have let her go? Well, that's an interesting thought too. By the end, Ellie is shattered; both of you have slaughtered hundreds to get there, and gone through emotional turmoil - Ellie's character design at the end is shocking, as she's verging on anorexic. You can
see the impact of all that hate and anger. So yeah, maybe seeing that Abby is looking after Lev (which adds to the guilt), and Ellie's own struggle at the time, might've been enough to let Abby go, even without experiencing her arc.
As an aside, while mentioning character design, I think it has to be hats off to the dev team for Abby's design. The braid and muscle, two simple things, combine to make an immediately exceptional design. You only need to find the spoiler memes across the net to see how it captures something unique. Hats off too to not overplaying the muscles - a lot of Abby's character is inferred, and there's something
human about a little girl burning her anger with muscle-building so that when the time comes for revenge, she is more than ready for it. The fact she is NOT trans, or gay, but just a muscled woman, also serves to expose the ludricrousness of the review bombs that talk about pushing some form of agenda.
The only agenda, when it comes to the main characters, is diversity. Outside of the bubble of Joel's murder, Abby would've been (and was anyway) a kick-ass character to play. Women can be muscley too. And gays exist. It doesn't need saying, but for some people, it does. Creating a game with a diversity of main characters, especially one so in the public eye, is overwhelming inclusive. It helps normalise diversity. The more this is done, the better.
Though the harder the push-back (see: the review-bombs).
Is the story perfect? No. It falls foul of its own realism. In many games you wouldn't think too hard about characters coming and going, but here, after you've struggled through infected and armies, and just struggled to even find a path at times, it felt incongruous to have characters suddenly find you. The aquarium stands out for me there - it was stormy and my boat capsized and I barely made it. And five seconds later Tommy's there. There were other encounters like this, like returning to the aquarium with Lev and Yara despite the fact I hadn't actually cleared the hordes on my way out to get them.
But! Some things can happen outside of the plotline. And you feel so invincible as Ellie or Abby it's difficult to remember that any other character can be just the same.
Seattle too was a bit of a plot hole. First, in following Tommy's tracks, yet still needing to do the puzzles and clear out areas he would've gone through. And second, considering what state it's in, it was difficult to believe people wanted to live there, let alone fight over it. And there was the usual plot device of having people make stupid decisions in order for x to happen. So the story wasn't perfect - but at least it tried to do something different. As for the plot divide, Abby's was also more interesting - without it, this story and game would have been weaker.
The amount of killing you do is also, of course, unrealistic - however, you can't forget that you actually die a hell of a lot. Especially on Survivor. I loved Grounded Mode, so wanted to face the biggest difficulty possible. Each encounter is like a puzzle to be worked out, and with Ellie's improved maneuverability, they are more enjoyable than the first game. It feels fluid, analogue; going prone and falling backwards, and little things like smashing glass and dodge, just grounds the combat and offers so much variety. Accessible variety too (in terms of gameplay). You can go stealthy, or go guns-out, and switch up the difficulty level if you really just want to have lots of ammo and health and play a more arcade-y version. Shamblers are great when they are smashing through walls to get at you, while Seraphites offer an interesting alternative to the WLF/Firefly types (though after my first encounter with them in the woods, I admit I expected more from them - they weren't half as stealthy as I thought they would be). The dogs were a good additional challenge too.
I've read and listened to a lot of reviews and reviews of the first game too that begin; no-one plays this game for the gameplay, only the story. It's an immediate red-flag to me. The only other game that matches the fun-level in terms of gameplay, that I have played, is Horizon Zero Dawn. There just aren't that many games like this; that exist in this kind of world. I'm not even a huge fan of the Uncharted series gameplay as it feels too arcade-y for my tastes. I guess I just enjoy the variety of options that are open to you here, combined with exploring the oddly serene, dilapidated environments for supplies. That the scenes in part 2 are so exquisitely detailed, from little rivulets that stream across cracked hardtop, to bags floating on the wind, to blood smeared thick across open doorways, to a tin-can rolling away in the distant dark of a basement in stereoscopic sound; are a testament to the effort invested by the ND team for raising the bar. They just need to work on refining things so that immersion isn't broken in the future, like duplicated character models, and (still, though better) your companion not getting in AI's faces.
Now bring on some multiplayer and part 3 please.
