Support NeoGAF

[Serpens007]

Sometimes, yes. When the story doesn't go around an experience or emotions. When it's not about subjective things.

What killed TLoU's journey to me was no having a choice at the ending. I wanted to have a cure, that was the reason to everything, and the choice of Joel was so goddamn telegraphed that was boring as shit.

I just hate the fact that devs still want to make games feel like a movie, and I'm saying this in the way that "you're not important to the story, just watch what happens". TLoU was about atmosphere, being invested/not invested with a character or mankind. So the fact that they removed what the player, the one that goes through the journey incarnating joel, could have wanted, just doesn't make sense to me. Videogames have the power to give a little more power to the player, and is what makes it so different from movies or books, where you are just a spectator of what happens.

So no, I disagree. Devs should realise that Videogames is a different storytelling than movies or books, or tv shows, etc. and player choice is important. TLoU made a disconection between the main characters and the player, and that is not helping Videogames grow.

 

[CaptainofIndustry]

But Joel would never, EVER, have sacrificed Ellie. You may have, but the character you were playing would never even have considered it -- to the point he'd go on a murdering rampage to prevent it.

This person gets it.

 

[Phamit]

I don't care, if they want to give me options give me options, if they don't want to, don't

Even if they do options, I don't need the perfect happy ending

 

[MickeyKnox]

I'm not crazy about TLOU or anything but you're really talking out of your ass here.

"High budget machinma?" What?

Machinima in the sense of using game engines to translate the story telling language of film to games, it's doesn't matter how adept a developer is at doing it (that is to say, it can have great/ performances, shot framing, editing, dialogue etc...) it doesn't change the conceptual problem of cinema being an absolutely static experience and gaming being an interactive one.

 

[Timeaisis]

The great thing about the game is you identify with Joel...right up until the end. Then you are forced to go down a route that you may not agree with. I think it would've been more compelling to have a choice at the moment you meet the fireflies what you want to do. Both endings could've been written fantastically.

Edit: basically I am Joel, suddenly I'm not Joel

 

[EmptySpace]

The majority took the narrative for what it was rather than worry about how the unrelated concept of player agency fit into a Naughty Dog game, a company known for making linear games.



Vintage meme, dude! So vintage it stinks.

and in this case it's the same ending for both camps.


whether you're playing thinking you have to save ellie as joel because that's where the game is headed, or you're trying to think as joel in this world, only that ending made sense for both types.of players.

 

[Rurunaki]

Sometimes, yes. When the story doesn't go around an experience or emotions. When it's not about subjective things.

What killed TLoU's journey to me was no having a choice at the ending. I wanted to have a cure, that was the reason to everything, and the choice of Joel was so goddamn telegraphed that was boring as shit.

I just hate the fact that devs still want to make games feel like a movie, and I'm saying this in the way that "you're not important to the story, just watch what happens". TLoU was about atmosphere, being invested/not invested with a character or mankind. So the fact that they removed what the player, the one that goes through the journey incarnating joel, could have wanted, just doesn't make sense to me. Videogames have the power to give a little more power to the player, and is what makes it so different from movies or books, where you are just a spectator of what happens.

So no, I disagree. Devs should realise that Videogames is a different storytelling than movies or books, or tv shows, etc. and player choice is important. TLoU made a disconection between the main characters and the player, and that is not helping Videogames grow.

The game was pretty much subjective. It is objective thinking that makes you want to sacrifice Ellie. Subjectively Joel could not even fathom the idea of losing another "daughter."

 

[NoblerThanWork]

Traditional storytelling and good game design are antithetical to one another.

More mechanics less high budget machinima please.

This is mind boggling. There's room for all types.

 

[Wensih]

Because gaming is an interactive medium. I play games to become engrossed and temporarily lost in their worlds, and that happens at a much deeper level for me in games with choice and consequence than most TV and cinema. It's especially powerful when you have to actually think critically about the decisions you make.

By selectively quoting my post, you missed the part where I didn't think it should be by default. Some games like TLOU want to take a different angle and that's fine, they're just not games for me and I accept that.

Instead we have a game where you have to reflect and think critically about the choices the character made and why he made those choices.

 

[Marcel]

The great thing about the game is you identify with Joel...right up until the end. Then you are forced to go down a route that you may not agree with. I think it would've been more compelling to have a choice at the moment you meet the fireflies what you want to do. Both endings could've been written fantastically.

Edit: basically I am Joel, suddenly I'm not Joel

I never identified with Joel because 'might makes right' and being a murderer is not something I would want to really associate myself with or embody. It's kind of like idolizing and identifying with the guy from Death Wish. You can enjoy the experience while keeping yourself removed from the character.

 

[Sotha_Sil]

TLoU made it clear from the beginning that this wasn't a game that was giving you choices. They might as well just given you the option in the beginning to not deliver Ellie in the first place, that didn't happen though. The game engrossed and made you lost in the world through the story telling and narrative of Joel and Ellie. The game was never about the player, it was about those two and of you really immersed yourself in the game then you would've empathized with the 2 conflicting feelings of Joel and Ellie. To randomly make a decision for Joel would've lessen the impact of the game.

I'm not sure why you quoted me with that reply, since I didn't dispute any of that.

Some games are designed like that, some are not. I personally prefer games that offer choice. Somehow that's being skewed by people into thinking I want every game to offer player choice. I don't. I want there to be a diversity of game design models, even if I don't like some of them (like ND's style).

 

[Wozman23]

Developers need to stay true to their story vision and need to have the courage to remove choice from the player sometimes, because what the player may like (or is naturally inclined to), may not be the thing that ends up resonating with them the most.

Looking back on all the stories that have resonated with me, they all led or forced me to a place I would never choose to go.

Infamous 2's

Spoiler

'bad' ending painfully forces you to kill your buddy Zeke as he opposes your immoral actions.

Resistance 2

Spoiler

bluntly kills off its protagonist.

Papo & Yo

Spoiler

makes you deal with the fact that sometimes you have to let go of people who negatively impact your life - in this case an alcoholic/abusive father.

If given the choice, I'd never choose any of those outcomes. My first Infamous playthough I wnet with the good ending. I always do. I honestly don't remember the specifics of it's end, but that bad ending really stuck with me.

 

[LowEndTorque]

Nothing wrong with choice, but sacrificing choice for a single superb ending like the one in TLOU is better than multiple shitty/mediocre endings just to give choice.

 

[Docflem]

I really can't understand people who want a choice at the end of the last of us, makes no sense to me. The ending is so powerful BECAUSE you don't get to choose. There is no way Joel would make any other choice, I have no idea how they could have wrote around that period. I say this as someone who loves games with choices and multiple endings, but sometimes I feel like people as default expect every option under the sun. Sometimes more options are really just not better.

I never identified with Joel because 'might makes right' and being a murderer is not something I would want to really associate myself with or embody. It's kind of like idolizing and identifying with the guy from Death Wish. You can enjoy the experience while keeping yourself removed from the character.

I don't think you understand the character very well, it's about loss and survival. About hanging on to those around you even while the world burns. Less might=right and more might=living for a few more days.

 

[JoeInky]

I always felt like the complaints about the ending were a bit nitpicky to be honest, the ending is the least of the games problems.

 

[Aurongel]

Letting the player choose the ending can potentially squander the entire narrative theme and message that the entire game sets up. Not letting you choose which ending you want would only be a problem if the ending the developers presented to you wasn't appropriate for the characters or narrative themes.

In the case of The Last of Us, they made the absolute right choice to ignore players like you who wanted something different.

 

[Serpens007]

The game was pretty much subjective. It is objective thinking that makes you want to sacrifice Ellie. Subjectively Joel could not even fathom the idea of losing another "daughter."

The thing is that in videogames, the character that you play is not a 100% the "character", it's also you. I insist, this is not movies, this is role playing. This is putting you, the player, in Joel's place. Would you do it then, or not? Maybe yes, maybe not, the thing is you should have had the choice, you're the one playing Joel's role.

 

[Afrodium]

But on game that relies heavily on emotional connection, don't you think the player should have some say in what happened? I do.

Again, I'm perfectly fine with the ending, I just would have made different choices.

It's not your choice, that's the point. It doesn't matter what you would have done in that situation. This is Joel's story, not yours.

 

[JJDinomite]

Infamous 1 and 2 did a fantastic job with choices. I disagree with the OP, if a game is actually centered around choices, it can be a good thing.

 

[Marcel]

The thing is that in videogames, the character that you play is not a 100% the "character", it's also you. I insist, this is not movies, this is role playing. This is putting you, the player, in Joel's place. Would you do it then, or not? Maybe yes, maybe not, the thing is you should have had the choice, you're the one playing Joel's role.

Joel is not your avatar, or at the very least he is a limited version of an avatar. He is a character you control for the action while he remains in control when it's time for story. How is this hard to understand?

 

[Ascenion]

I've always thought choice undermines the writer's vision. No matter what choices you present a player, you have a canon ending in your head, a way you intended it to play out. Damn the players choice it isn't their story its yours and if you mar that perfection or vision, you do them and yourself a disservice. That's why in things like Mass Effect I always try to pick the "real" ending first, the way it was written. Sure on other runs I do what if scenarios but they aren't real to me even though they could be which is the problem to me. A choice in TLOU would've ruined it for me. Left me wondering too much even after a canon decision.

 

[Rurunaki]

The thing is that in videogames, the character that you play is not a 100% the "character", it's also you. I insist, this is not movies, this is role playing. This is putting you, the player, in Joel's place. Would you do it then, or not? Maybe yes, maybe not, the thing is you should have had the choice, you're the one playing Joel's role.

Joel is not a blank slate of a character though. Which to me implies that you didn't really connect to Joel's character. If Joel was an extension of you the player and that you have truly symphatized with him, any other ending would make you a bigger monster than Joel

 

[shenhaZ]

The Last of Us ending feels like an absolute failure if you played Spec Ops The Line previously.

 

[jetjevons]

The thing is that in videogames, the character that you play is not a 100% the "character", it's also you. I insist, this is not movies, this is role playing. This is putting you, the player, in Joel's place. Would you do it then, or not? Maybe yes, maybe not, the thing is you should have had the choice, you're the one playing Joel's role.

But this isn't a role playing game? I mean it is in the sense you're playing through a character but you're not that character. The ending was totally consistent with Joel's emotional journey and internal logic.

Having the option for a totally incongruous ending like

Spoiler

sacrificing Ellie for the chance the Fireflies might learn something

would have greatly hurt the overall experience in my opinion.

Like when a test audience watches a preview of a movie and doesn't like the ending where the good guy dies, so the studio changes it.

 

[Docflem]

The thing is that in videogames, the character that you play is not a 100% the "character", it's also you. I insist, this is not movies, this is role playing. This is putting you, the player, in Joel's place. Would you do it then, or not? Maybe yes, maybe not, the thing is you should have had the choice, you're the one playing Joel's role.

You realize that "role playing" means adopting the character and acting as he would. Modern RPGs have been huge on doing what you want and customization, but the root of it (say like JRPGs) were always about adopting a character and following him through his journey, not yours.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

TLOU seems to fit a game where a choice in ending would seem sorta unfitting. You never had any choice in the first place when it came to the narrative.

Other games make choice fit well, but only if the developer is working toward that goal.

 

[HK-47]

The Last of Us ending feels like an absolute failure if you played Spec Ops The Line previously.

I've played both several times and have no idea what you mean.

 

[Marcel]

The Last of Us ending feels like an absolute failure if you played Spec Ops The Line previously.

What does Spec Ops have to do with a linear Naughty Dog game again?

 

[LifEndz]

I think having a prompt of press x to tell the truth or press o to lie would've undercut what they were going for. Instead of laboring on a choice, you observed Ellie and Joel one last time and you really got to analyze the look on Ellie's face, the tone of her voice and even her body language as she realized Joel was lying. I hated the ending at first just because it was so abrupt, but I later realized what I hated was that it was over and I wanted to continue with Joel and Ellie.

 

[Sotha_Sil]

You realize that "role playing" means adopting the character and acting as he would. Modern RPGs have been huge on doing what you want and customization, but the root of it (say like JRPGs) were always about adopting a character and following him through his journey, not yours.

Only if you were a console gamer. The older PC exclusive RPGs had choice and consequence, usually to a much greater degree than modern RPGs. There might be older examples, but Wasteland offered players C&C 28 years ago.

 

[autoduelist]

I disagree. Like I said I think it would have made the game that much better. In my first playthrough when I reached the operating room I stood for 30-60 seconds because I didn't want to kill the doctor, until I realized that I had to kill at least one of them. If I was given the option to kill him or not, it would have culminated the entire game for me there, all that I, as the player, went through with Ellie would be ultimately be my decision, and that I think, like I've already mentioned, would have made the game that much better.

But you're missing a key component of this. You keep saying:
"when I reached the operating room"

When Joel reached the operating room.

"because I didn't want to kill the doctor"

You weren't there. Joel was.

"If I was given the option to kill him or not"

Fortunately, you weren't there, Joel was.

"I, as the player, went through with Ellie would be ultimately be my decision"

You want a blank slate character. That's fine - I love blank slate RPGs. But TLOU is not a blank slate kind of game. It's telling a very specific story about a very specific man -- one who lost people close to him, one who already made many rough decisions just to survive, and one who finally reclaimed his own humanity through his love of Ellie. He was not about to let anyone risk her life. The idea that he'd even contemplate it is ridiculous - it would negate every bit of storytelling up to that point. Joel wasn't wracked with guilt over his decision, he knew what had to be done.

You realize that "role playing" means adopting the character and acting as he would. Modern RPGs have been huge on doing what you want and customization, but the root of it (say like JRPGs) were always about adopting a character and following him through his journey, not yours.

This is kind of incorrect. Yes, in jrpgs you adopt characters and go along with their story. But in early western crpgs (wrpgs) you often had 'blank slate' characters where you made up their own backstory and story. This has nothing to do with 'modern RPGs'... it's always been a defining difference between the approach wrpgs and jrpgs take (and why many older games don't use the terms to define geographic differences, but genre differences). Think of D&D -- you just made a paladin, a wizard, a thief, and a mercenary... and everything else was in your imagination. Some games even had ways to roleplay fairly deeply -- for example, choice and consequence decisions, or going for a 'pacifist' win where you avoid killing anything, or stats that affected dialog choices so you couldn't make your stupid character say something smart.

And none of that invalidates a game that tells the story it wants to tell rather than give the player an arbitrary tablescrap of illusory player freedom at the end.

I think the person you were quoting was just correcting the statement, not saying it had a damn thing to do with TLOU. TLOU very clearly tells Joel's story and is not a blank slate game.

 

[Moon_frogger]

Letting the player choose the ending can potentially squander the entire narrative theme and message that the entire game sets up. Not letting you choose which ending you want would only be a problem if the ending the developers presented to you wasn't appropriate for the characters or narrative themes.

In the case of The Last of Us, they made the absolute right choice to ignore players like you who wanted something different.

Maybe in the case of the last of us, but there are plenty of choices in life that I was on the fence about. Finding a cure for a horrid Human race destroying fungus virus wouldn't be much of a choice to most people....except in the case of TLOU it was clear the were going to lobotomize a little girl and in all likelihood find nothing at all. They were a bunch of nutters. So really, it wasn't a compelling choice anyway.

 

[Marcel]

Only if you were a console gamer. The older PC exclusive RPGs had choice and consequence, usually to a much greater degree than modern RPGs. There might be older examples, but Wasteland offered players C&C 26 years ago.

And none of that invalidates a game that tells the story it wants to tell rather than give the player an arbitrary tablescrap of illusory player freedom at the end.

 

[EatChildren]

You realize that "role playing" means adopting the character and acting as he would. Modern RPGs have been huge on doing what you want and customization, but the root of it (say like JRPGs) were always about adopting a character and following him through his journey, not yours.

Doing what you want and customisation based on the adoption of a chosen identity and your journey with that identity are very much the heart of role playing as established by table tops and dungeon masters over the classic JRPG philosophy. But the key is a game world that responds to your role playing, which most modern open RPGs do poorlynl.

 

[martino]

I finally finished The Last of Us, something I had been putting off for quite a while. I don't know why I was, as it was one of the best video game experiences of a generation. Story, Characters, Dialogue, Art, Gameplay, Setting... Anyways, there's TLOU threads for that...

What I want to discuss is the feeling when it ended (after shock and introspective) where I thought "Was there an option for me for a different ending? Should I not have pressed triangle in the end of Winter scene?". Video game developers have trained us into having happy endings as an option, usually in a "best ending" format where the "sad ending" is the worst or default one. Once I realized that was the ending, I appreciated the fact they didn't let me choose a happy ending that I would have naturally gone for, because the ending they provided had a lot more impact.

Developers need to stay true to their story vision and need to have the courage to remove choice from the player sometimes, because what the player may like (or is naturally inclined to), may not be the thing that ends up resonating with them the most.

What are your thoughts? Would you prefer choice, or director's vision no matter your preference?

EDIT - Just adding this analogy to OP:

I would hope interactivity in games would progress with technology (impact ia, story, environment etc...).....the trends seems to do the exact opposit...and a it seems not to be what the viable consumer base look in it.
I'm tears.

 

[Docflem]

Only if you were a console gamer. The older PC exclusive RPGs had choice and consequence, usually to a much greater degree than modern RPGs. There might be older examples, but Wasteland offered players C&C 26 years ago.

Actually even older roleplaying games, AKA the tabletop RPG, is about choice to a point, but the magic is still in adopting a character and playing a role, making choices as the character you created would. When you play Joel, you are playing his story, to try and shoehorn choice in probably didn't even come to the minds of the creator because it is kinda weird to try and imagine how it would even work.

Doing what you want and customisation based on the adoption of a chosen identity and your journey with that identity are very much the heart of role playing as established by table tops and dungeon masters over the classic JRPG philosophy. But the key is a game world that responds to your role playing, which most modern open RPGs do poorlynl.

Ever play a game of dnd where one of your mates keeps making decisions and choices that would not line up with his character? Not very "immersive" is it?

 

[Zornack]

But you're missing a key component of this. You keep saying:
"when I reached the operating room"

When Joel reached the operating room.

"because I didn't want to kill the doctor"

You weren't there. Joel was.

"If I was given the option to kill him or not"

Fortunately, you weren't there, Joel was.

"I, as the player, went through with Ellie would be ultimately be my decision"

You want a blank slate character. That's fine - I love blank slate RPGs. But TLOU is not a blank slate kind of game. It's telling a very specific story about a very specific man -- one who lost people close to him, one who already made many rough decisions just to survive, and one who finally reclaimed his own humanity through his love of Ellie. He was not about to let anyone risk her life. The idea that he'd even contemplate it is ridiculous - it would negate every bit of storytelling up to that point. Joel wasn't wracked with guilt over his decision, he knew what had to be done.

Joel in the operating room should have been part of the cutscene. Forcing the player to kill the doctors is a powerful moment but it is totally within reason that Joel's character would have brandished his weapon, forced the doctors to give him Ellie and then leave. Because this course of action would have fit Joel's character it makes that part of the game feel awkward as struggling to find a way to proceed without harming the doctors is a completely rational course of action for the player, given Joel's character. Joel killing the doctors is a resolution that makes sense for the character but forcing the player to do it instead of presenting it in a cutscene is, in my opinion, an interesting experiment but ultimately a failed one.

 

[Meccanical]

You realize that "role playing" means adopting the character and acting as he would. Modern RPGs have been huge on doing what you want and customization, but the root of it (say like JRPGs) were always about adopting a character and following him through his journey, not yours.

You completely screwed up the concept of role playing.

Role playing usually involves the player determining what that characters role will be in the story, not sitting on auto pilot and watching some guy make his own decisions.

 

[Fury451]

Disagree. Both endings could be written fantastically. Choice puts you in the drivers seat and provides ultimate immersion

But choice wasn't compatible with the story goals- endure and survive. It was Joel's journey, and giving him a choice would be out of character for him.

 

[HK-47]

Doing what you want and customisation based on the adoption of a chosen identity and your journey with that identity are very much the heart of role playing as established by table tops and dungeon masters over the classic JRPG philosophy. But the key is a game world that responds to your role playing, which most modern open RPGs do poorlynl.

Which video games as a medium do poorly. Imagination is the greatest gaming program that exists.

 

[Marcel]

I would hope interactivity in games would progress with technology (impact ia, story, environment etc...).....the trends seems to do the exact opposit...and a it seems not to be what the viable consumer base look in it.
I'm tears.

Playing a game is basically putting yourself in a playroom made for you by developers and creatives. Open-world or general games with Moral Choices™ offers a bigger space to play, but you're still trapped in a room.

In other words, much of the dialogue and hand-wringing about player freedom is bullshit.

 

[shenhaZ]

What does Spec Ops have to do with a linear Naughty Dog game again?

Because Spec Ops did storytelling like a game and The Last of Us like a movie.

And the first approach is the future.

 

[EatChildren]

Spec Ops entire story and experimentation with agency as narrative hinges entirely on a major event the player has literally zero choice in and is forced to do in order to move forward. It's a terrible example when used to contest The Last of Us as it's the same bloody thing.

 

[Meccanical]

I wanna say the whole basis of this topic is flawed because I guess OP assumes that player choice is a thing that is just "shoed in" in all games as opposed to designed fundamentally in the game itself at the very beginning of development.

Using Mass Effect as a counter point doesn't work because Bioware is not particularly good.

 

[HK-47]

Because Spec Ops did storytelling like a game and The Last of Us like a movie.

And the first approach is the future.

Spec Ops bitched at you for doing the one thing you are suppose to do with a game, which is play it. I liked it but I certainly wouldnt hold it up as some paragon of interactive storytelling.

 

[thelastcrusader]

A child needs to go to the dentist.
You have to drive them there.
They don't want to go, but they are better off for having gone.
They wouldn't have gone there themselves.

That analogy goes exactly to my point.

What the hell are you talking about?

I agree completely. I hate having multiple or hidden endings, would much rather they tell a cohesive story in line with the vision of the developers.

Dat first post is exactly how I feel.

 

[Molemitts]

Joel in the operating room should have been part of the cutscene. Forcing the player to kill the doctors is a powerful moment but it is totally within reason that Joel's character would have brandished his weapon, forced the doctors to give him Ellie and then leave. Because this course of action would have fit Joel's character it makes that part of the game feel awkward as struggling to find a way to proceed without harming the doctors is a completely rational course of action for the player, given Joel's character. Joel killing the doctors is a resolution that makes sense for the character but forcing the player to do it instead of presenting it in a cutscene is, in my opinion, an interesting experiment but ultimately a failed one.

This is great point. I didn't kill the doctors immediately because they posed no threat to me and seemed to surrender, as soon as I realised I had no choice I reluctantly killed them. That's not what Joel would have done, he would have rushed in and took Ellie by any means necessary, obviously the game wanted me to do that as Joel would, but there has already been an established disconnect from you, the player and Joel, which is a problem.

 

[Sotha_Sil]

And none of that invalidates a game that tells the story it wants to tell rather than give the player an arbitrary tablescrap of illusory player freedom at the end.

... where did I say it did? I was responding to the sentiment that video game RPGs used to be linear stories about characters. I'm pointing out that is not entirely true. There was no judgement or opinion being given, simply a fact.

If people's reading comprehension is this bad (and this is like the 4th time this thread), it's a wonder they can enjoy any story in a video game.

 

[Sakura]

I don't really get the whole 'It is Joel's story, not yours!', 'Joel wouldn't do this!', or 'Joel wouldn't do that!'
It's a video game.
It's not like you need to put a fucking dialogue box at the end that says Save Ellie? Yes/No
For example, you could make it possible so that if you struggle too much, or go the wrong way or something, by the time you reach Ellie it is already too late. That wouldn't be out of character for Joel because those are things beyond his control.

Although I don't think not saving Ellie needs to be an option, as I like the current ending. I just wish the journey was less linear.

 

[Docflem]

You completely screwed up the concept of role playing.

Role playing usually involves the player determining what that characters role will be in the story, not sitting on auto pilot and watching some guy make his own decisions.

That is not what role-playing means and it's a weird way to choose to twist the phrase. Hell the exact definition is "the acting out or performance of a particular role" not "to choose the role of the character." It's besides the point anyways, the last of us isn't even an rpg to begin with.