Steve Thornton

What's caught my attention about TLOU2 is how it has tried to introduce a new character who wants to hurt the beloved characters from TLOU1 (essentially an antagonist) as a playable perspective- basically putting players in the role of trying to hurt the characters they like

Protagonists tend to by deeply tied to what audiences love about an IP (not always true but def true for TLOU) and video games foster a symbiotic bond even deeper than other mediums, so asking players to turn on them in order to progress is a strong conflict of interest

It might have been possible to foster a new relationship long enough to have players be semi-equally invested in both perspectives, but TLOU2 has the new character betray their existing meta allegiances WAY before that work is done. It does that damage then tries to fix it later

The game does a lot of work to retroactively create understanding and loyalty to the new character and their world, cleverly starting them cold (like we see them) and warming them up, but, can it ever compete with older loyalties to the original protagonists?

It's a bold goal, to try and get players to forgive that. The crux of the game is to empathize with both sides, and that dehumanizing one side into the "enemy" is wrong. This requires stepping beyond loyalties, but I can see why many players just point blank refuse to do so

Games arent real life, our connections to characters are far more shallow + selfish, I'm not surprised at all how many players refuse to stop rooting for their OG faves against those who hurt them. Perhaps thats exposing a moral flaw in people or perhaps its the limits of fantasy

TLOU resonated with players because it used gameplay to make players relate to the characters and align with their motivations, TLOU2 is interesting because it does the opposite, it tries to subvert the players relationship with the playable characters, which is uncomfortable

Linear games where player agency can't change the story in turn can't create meaningful guilt or regret in players, because they won't take responsibility for scripted or progression-dependent actions. So, at worst, it can only misalign the player and character

What's so impressive about the end of TLOU is that it had a HUGE amount of players rooting for Joel, despite the objective immorality of his actions. I would argue that is a success of immersion and alignment. TLOU2 taps into this alignment early on, then tries to smash it

However I think TLOU2 underestimates that success of its first game, and the 7 years thereafter that fans had to distill and ferment their loyalty to the characters they associate the IP with, which is why many will reach the end without every changing their core allegiance

There are some other flaws in the theme too: number 1 being: is 2020 really the time for a "both sides" story? and number 2, outside the two warring camps, every other group appears to be deeply unsympathetic gimmicky crazies

The most spoilery thing I'll say is: the final narrative choice of TLOU2 should have been a player choice. If the entire game is a thesis, an argument to change the players mind. The ending should have been a test: a question, not an answer. Let the player touch the catharsis