-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Last of Us ending - Why developers need to remove choice from players sometimes
- Thread starter Tabris
- Start date
Okay here's something we can do, I think it's pretty obvious that myself and most everyone else that are anti-ending choice think the story and characterization in the Last of Us is amazing top-tier stuff. If you'd like to, why don't you pick a game with ending choices that you think makes the story even better so I can better see your point of view.
paragonpro
Banned
I like Mass Effect 1 because my choices affected the outcome of the story, I liked Uncharted because I got to play an awesome action movie and the hero got the girl and so forth. So really, I think that both choice driven tales and linear narratives both have an important place in the gaming landscape.
TLOU does NOT have choice. Joel has a choice. You are not Joel. It is not roleplaying. You don't always control Joel, and you are not even controlling Joel at the time.
Giving the player of a choice just throws Joel's character and his character building out the window. That would have ruined the game and made everything up to that point pointless.
I guess I should have specified, I'm more talking about a game in which there is only 2 different endings. Hell mass effect wouldn't even answer the question because there really isn't diverging endings, just really the promise that your choices would matter in the sequel. I'm more referring to something like Farcry 4 where really the only one real choice.
Good that they didn't listen to that feedback. I guess some people are so used to games offering a choice when a moral decision comes up that they want it in any kind of game.
This. It would make no sense to include that option.
Serpens007
Member
Yeah, well, here's the thing: that is not usual. It's not usual where you see a game where your character has to make a choice and it does it on its own.
But, I'm going to give an example that I can remember of, and I think that many will roll their eyes, because the game itself it's not good, but the choice given was good.
Battlefield 4 story (yeah, I went there) it's quite linear, like your usual FPS. But at the end
while trying to save you main ship, the Valkery, it's time to manually set a bomb, where it's remote detonation is not an option. So if a soldier goes and fix it, will be caught in the explosion. So, while you're holding the bomb, your two squad mate want to sacrifice themslefs, and ask you to give it to one of them, but you can also go, or, ultimately, just do nothing and your ship sinks. You have those options, and they are natural, within the flow of the story, etc.
I'll give inmediatly that the game's story is not very good, and everything, but leaving that aside, just speaking of the way the game can end, it is very well made. Devs gave your character a choice, so it's only natural that the player can make it. It doesn't matter if it is third person or first person, they gave a character in your control a choice, even if the game is linear as hell.
The One and Done
Member
TLOU was fantastic in it's story. It's a story driven game so I play it with the expectation of being told a story. Though several branchnig plots based on player choice can be appealing, I truly feel it lessens the quality of the overall story that's being told.
I mean think about if in God of War they let you choose whether or not to kill Zues or in Metal Gear if they let you choose whether or not to end Big Boss? It fundamentally changes the weight and meaning of the story to not have it actually play out and, at times, could be disastrous!
Imagine Game of Thrones having a Mass Effect style multiple choice test with Ned. Tell the player the story when it's story driven game. I think multiple choice should be left to open world games only but even then you should be able to tell a cohesive story that makes sense with the gameplay.
I mean think about if in God of War they let you choose whether or not to kill Zues or in Metal Gear if they let you choose whether or not to end Big Boss? It fundamentally changes the weight and meaning of the story to not have it actually play out and, at times, could be disastrous!
Imagine Game of Thrones having a Mass Effect style multiple choice test with Ned. Tell the player the story when it's story driven game. I think multiple choice should be left to open world games only but even then you should be able to tell a cohesive story that makes sense with the gameplay.
Serpens007
Member
Try and leave the control on the floor after firing up the game, see if the game itself reaches that point. It doesn't. We can not act like the player doesn't matter in any game arc.
I can't think of game = spectator. We're not, if even little, the player is the one that mixes with the character and make the story happens.
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
i dont like games where they give you multiple choices in terms of story because its too black and white and constantly makes you play a certain way if you want a particular ending. you have to micromanage you karma metre or whatever so it just doesnt feel natural.
i have yet to play a game that offered multiple endings that i was satisfied with
i have yet to play a game that offered multiple endings that i was satisfied with
This is just special pleading fallacy, where because games are so much different than other forms of media, that somehow it must mean that they must exemplify every little unique thing about them. This is not true of other media, you don't see every movie constantly using pure visuals to tell a story because it's a "visual medium" compared to books after all (they use everything at their disposal), so there's no reason why a video game must use what makes it "unique" constantly.
The game was never set up to have the player's choice be anything important. Your argument only works in a game that is reliant on choice or a form of roleplaying, which TLoU is neither. You're basically saying "why play a game that has its main character make a choice if I can't make it for them?", which, as pointed out by others, is completely removing the agency of the characters themselves and has never been a point of TLoU.
If you're going to count basic encounter-to-encounter interaction as "choices", then you're cheapening the very thing you're claiming makes gaming oh-so-special because now everything is a choice.
And again, just because it makes a game "unique" doesn't mean you inject it into every little thing. This special pleading for games is what bugs me when people argue about this topic.
Because characters in stories have difficulty making choices sometimes. Again, that's like saying "why play a game that has its main character make a choice if I can't make it for them?". It robs the character themselves of agency, and needlessly puts in player agency when there was no indication that player agency was introduced in the game in the first place.
The game made the decision for you to take Ellie to the fireflies. The game never presents a situation where the player makes a choice for Joel, everything is done independently for himself. You could argue Joel already made his decision as soon as he started his slaughter on the final level. What, after storing through the Firefly base, smashing through everyone, all of a sudden "You know, you're right, kill Ellie and do your best!"? It flies in the face of the entire character that was built up from the very beginning.
It clearly would for some people. With how much people bitch to George Lucas about all his minor changes to his series ("Han shot first! Han shot first!"), people clearly like having a singular story. But that doesn't mean we can't interpret said story and branch off from there. There is merit to having a singular, linear story that tries to do a specific thing.
__
I'm getting fairly annoyed by the special pleading of "games are different! Games are special!" argument when it comes to choices. We've already had those arguments when film, comics, all sorts of musical genres, and you know what the solution was? Utilizing everything, not exemplifying the solitary differences.
Okay this is a good example on how choice can add impact, but was the character you were playing as strong and as engrossing as any of the characters in the last of us? I think the reason why that choice makes sense in that game is because of the context of the game as a whole. I'm guessing The MC of that game is not a strong enough character to drive that choice and have it impact the player, so to up the ante they all of a sudden the put the player in a tough spot to create tension.
Here's the thing though, the best part of the end is that you have to take part in it. That's what makes it uniquely a videogame story, It's the ultamite "walk a mile in my shoe." It helps you to understand and empathizes with the characters and it occurs over the course of the whole game, it's brilliant.
That's so stupid. Inserting yourself into Joel means you take on Joel's character. Joel is still Joel. That's why people get upset over his decision at the end. Because they felt disgusted at his character after they spent many hours inserting their consciousness into Joel's personality. Others agreed with him. But in the end, a disconnect from a character that can be argued as an anti-hero is natural. You are not Joel. The ending makes that abundantly clear. Any other ending would betray Joel's character. He would not have made that choice. The rest of the game would be pointless.
In reality, the story will only ever go one way because you are not Joel. It is not a game about choice, and never will be. There's a difference from playing a role and playing a character. Roles are just roles. You can insert whatever personality you want into that role. Characters are defined and built up. They have their own minds and you are not there to decide for them. Choices are made when you insert your personality into the world. If a game only lets you tag along with characters for the ride, choices like that serve little purpose.
I completely agree with this. Usually one of the endings is much more satisfying anyways due to better writing or fitting with the character more, and I think it's a problem that inFamous is always running into. The good endings in those games are far more compelling and interesting than the "evil" path.
The Last of Us was all about ambiguity, and it worked wonderfully. The world is not black-and-white, and like the world of Fallout, there really is no right answer. That game did give you choices, but it serves the narrative because the choices sometimes produced equally bad results. Here in The Last of Us, Choice is a irrelevant, because the character we are playing as is never going to break that bond that he has for his surrogate daughter.
And if I recall correctly, there was no guarantee that letting the doctors continue the procedure would have changed anything anyways, they were basically taking a gamble because Ellie was unique. It doesn't mean that they would've been able to make a cure.
Serpens007
Member
Yes, we agree that is a brilliant thing. And it's why I think in this particular game, it would have been good to have the option, since you walk the mile in his shoe, and makes you think "I would do this" or "I wouldn't do this", and actively take part of the moment. We don't need "good ending, bad ending", or needing a Karma meter, or stuff like that.
And precisely, what I felt by the ending, is that you take part of all of the game but the most important part.
Extra Sauce
Member
I loved The Last of Us's ending and I loved a lot of other endings that were choice-based. Not every game needs to be the same.
The real disconnect here is making a choice for a protagonist that is out of character. The player, from the start, has had no direct influence in Joel's personality or character. Just because we 'control' him does not mean ,we have to exert your character into Joel. He has his narrative and we are along for the ride, having direct actions to what Joel does would make him nothing more than a generic npc. Joel is not the Avatar of the player, he is his own character. In the end, you couldn't empathize with Joel which is why you wanted a different take on the ending. For what's its worth, the players were made to critically think more with the what ifs scenarios instead of being given multiple endings that will undermine the narrative.
There is NO WAY a choice-filled story can be nearly as thematically and characteristically coherent as a writer-determined story.
It's inherent to the limitation of having to give up creative control.
The most important part of the game was Joel agreeing to deliver Ellie when Tess was bit. What if he didn't agree to finish the job? What if him being taken care of by Ellie made him see Ellie as a surrogate daughter? As soon as Joel and Ellie has established their relationship, there was only 1 course for the story to go.
From the way you talk about what you think games should be, you seem to have a severely limited vision on what they are, what they can be, and what they can do. Not every game needs to be about the gameplay. Not every moment of gameplay needs to be about player agency. Hell, not every moment of gameplay has to be about fun. It's ok for a game to focus on story and have gameplay supporting that story. Not every possible interaction needs to be explored. It's fine to have a gameplay section where a character does something that you cannot control. Etc. etc. These are all tools that can be used to craft a unique experience or moment. If you think that a certain tool should always be used in a certain way for the product to fit your arbitrary definition, then you should maybe open your mind a bit.
It's fine that the player 'doesn't matter' in the story of TLOU; the story is not about the player, the story is about Joel. And there should be absolutely no problem with a game being about telling a story. The specific moment you bring up - the moment you enter the surgery room and are left in control of Joel - is that way for a very specific reason. It was never meant to give you a choice. You remain in control of Joel so that you are consciously thinking about what Joel is going to do. You might stand there for a while, maybe thinking that you have some way out of this situation as it makes you uncomfortable, and this forces you to think about why you find it uncomfortable. When you finally accept that Joel needs to kill the doctor to move forward, this learns you something new about Joel that changes your relation to him and opinion about him. And you do all of this through gameplay. That is so much more powerful than if it had been a simple cutscene of Joel storming in and killing the doctor. If you had been given a choice during this moment, everything I just described would not have existed. It would become a binary 'pick-your-ending'-choice of doing what Joel would logically do in the context of his character and the preceding story vs. having Joel do what you think he should have done had he been you despite it making no sense for Joel to do that in any way.
It is vitally important that that part is playable and not just a cutscene.
It is also vitally important that the player does not have a choice in that moment.
It is a very cleverly crafted scene that would have failed in lesser hands, and I feel that you are wrong to dismiss it so easily.
MrRudiMentary
Member
Completely agree. Another good example is Sleeping Dogs. Throughout the game you are made to balance being a cop and being a criminal (non-mutually exclusive missions, upgrades...) so to end with a choice between the two would completely negate that theme. In the end
An understated ending to an understated game.
Wei-Shen, not the player, decides he can't just choose one and leaves both.
Finale Fireworker
Member
People who whine about choice don't make sense to me. I don't know if I've ever played a game in my life where choice made any difference to my experience beyond BioShock and Red Dead.
If you want choice play Mass Effect, you know?
If you want choice play Mass Effect, you know?
burritosenior
Member
I agree. I mean, I found the gameplay of TLOU to be pretty generic. Not 'boring' per-say, but definitely not new or exciting. The story is what the game has going for it, and if they had let you choose the ending I think a good deal of that would have been lost, too. As it stands, it's one of the best told stories in gaming in my opinion.
Hmm, we might end up agreeing to disagree because I can't really think of a way to better describe it other than to say that the end is the true mile in Joel shoes. Up until that point I bet 99% of people were with him every step of the way and the ending is where people would have diverged. However Neil and the other writers didn't let you and are you experince a life defining event with a character that you might deeply disagree with in order to really understand him. Does that make sense?
The problem is seeing any alternative as desecrating the very soul of the story, some fault of comprehension of the individual. "THIS IS THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE!" Last of Us isn't some holy text. You can present alternate scenarios without destroying the meaning, the quality, the impact of one of the scenarios. Entire books, shows, movies, games have used exactly this idea to present alternative scenarios that play on the same ideas. An example is 9 hours, 9 persons, 9 doors.
This is a devil's advocate position.
I personally have no problem with linear stories lacking choices. At the same time, I have no problem with a game that presents choices. They are not diametrically opposed ideas, the democratic versus republican concept of story telling. It is possible to do one or the other without sacrificing the quality and meaning of a story.
While I found Last of Us's ending to be compelling (in fact I thought it was the only excellent part of Last of Us, with the intro and giraffe segments overrated, and the gameplay clunky), an alternate ending would not have ruined anything for me. It would have just been an alternate ending, more material to think about. At the same time, the lack of choice didn't ruin anything either. It was fine as is.
There is a huge market out there. Different strokes for different folks. Different games for different people. Although I do think it would be nice to have more REAL choice in games (not meaningless Telltale/Bioware style choice). That leads to complexity, though, and production companies hate complexity as it leads to cost and risk.
What if you could play as Joel as he approached the bridge out of town in the intro sequence and save his daughter from the soldier? You had no choice then. It was a critical, defining moment in Joel's life and the game's story.
Or when Joel is presented with Ellie and told he needs to escort her. What if the player had a choice and just flat out said no. I'm not babysitting her. We don't need the guns that bad.
Or when Joel catch's two of David's goons in Winter, tortures info out of them then murders them. What if it was your choice? "No, I don't want to torture these men. I'm not a torturer. I don't murder men who are tied up. I'm not a cold blooded killer. " No you're not. Joel is.
I don't get why people think the ending to a story is any less important than all of the other beats along the way. Why should you suddenly have a choice then? It's not your story. It's Joels..
For the record I love that ND forced the player to pull the trigger on the doctor as Joel. I thought it was a pretty clear and deliberate statement. You're not in control of Joel, your playing AS Joel. And his actions in that moment were selfish and to some people it was uncomfortable. That's fine. Just don't say it was a bad ending or an inconsistent one.
I'm honestly a little more surprised by the players that thought Joel DID echo their choices up to till that moment.
Or when Joel is presented with Ellie and told he needs to escort her. What if the player had a choice and just flat out said no. I'm not babysitting her. We don't need the guns that bad.
Or when Joel catch's two of David's goons in Winter, tortures info out of them then murders them. What if it was your choice? "No, I don't want to torture these men. I'm not a torturer. I don't murder men who are tied up. I'm not a cold blooded killer. " No you're not. Joel is.
I don't get why people think the ending to a story is any less important than all of the other beats along the way. Why should you suddenly have a choice then? It's not your story. It's Joels..
For the record I love that ND forced the player to pull the trigger on the doctor as Joel. I thought it was a pretty clear and deliberate statement. You're not in control of Joel, your playing AS Joel. And his actions in that moment were selfish and to some people it was uncomfortable. That's fine. Just don't say it was a bad ending or an inconsistent one.
I'm honestly a little more surprised by the players that thought Joel DID echo their choices up to till that moment.
ClayKavalier
Banned
I'm mostly on board with you OP, but if games are going force me to be complicit in something I don't agree with the writers need to be able to back the decision up.
Ending spoilers for The Order:
In The Order you're a member of a group of knights that protect humanity from monsters, including werewolves. At the end, you find out that the son of the leader of The Order is a werewolf himself. He gives a speech about how werewolves aren't so bad, and they haven't done anything wrong for the sake of it, they're just trying to survive.
The leader guy then orders you to murder his son because if it got out that he had raised a werewolf, public trust in The Order would be destroyed. This is the same guy who recently condemned your playable character to death for bringing to light that the head of a corporation is a werewolf and is spreading lycanthropism to America. You have no reason to remain loyal to this man.
The last thing you do in the game is pull the trigger. The game humanizes this character, gives you every reason to despise the leader, and then forces you to obey the leader's command. Even though it's clear there's more to the whole man vs. werewolf thing, even though this particular werewolf obviously bears no ill will towards humanity, even though it's clear that The Order is a farce, you murder this guy because... I really don't know why, just because some asshole you don't trust told you to.
I didn't agree with a lot of what Joel did in the Last of Us, but I at least understand why he does it, and the story was really memorable. In The Order I'm left thinking "Well, that was fucking dumb."
The leader guy then orders you to murder his son because if it got out that he had raised a werewolf, public trust in The Order would be destroyed. This is the same guy who recently condemned your playable character to death for bringing to light that the head of a corporation is a werewolf and is spreading lycanthropism to America. You have no reason to remain loyal to this man.
The last thing you do in the game is pull the trigger. The game humanizes this character, gives you every reason to despise the leader, and then forces you to obey the leader's command. Even though it's clear there's more to the whole man vs. werewolf thing, even though this particular werewolf obviously bears no ill will towards humanity, even though it's clear that The Order is a farce, you murder this guy because... I really don't know why, just because some asshole you don't trust told you to.
I didn't agree with a lot of what Joel did in the Last of Us, but I at least understand why he does it, and the story was really memorable. In The Order I'm left thinking "Well, that was fucking dumb."
DC1
Member
I am fine playing a narrative driven game where I play a part in the experience while watching the story unfold. The Last of Us did this better than any game that I have played over 30+ years of video game love'n.
Additionally, I have greatly enjoyed decision tree experiences such as the Witcher and Mass Effect.
When executed well, the scope of the game and the directional approach play a heavy roll in how we ingest the experiences.
I wouldn't change a thing.
Additionally, I have greatly enjoyed decision tree experiences such as the Witcher and Mass Effect.
When executed well, the scope of the game and the directional approach play a heavy roll in how we ingest the experiences.
I wouldn't change a thing.
Blargonaut
Banned
I agree with OP.
The Last of Us is Joel's story.
You weren't meant to be the full Joel.
I believe the player was more like Joel's "auto-pilot", the dissociated aspect of his psyche that was the pure skill-applying survival instinct necessary to survive in his post-apocalyptic world. You, the player, were this aspect, this piece, of Joel.
This is how I interpreted the player-Joel relationship:
During the combat sections of the game, Joel essentially lets his "auto-pilot" (you, the player) take over. "Auto-pilot/you" shoots for Joel, stabs for Joel, strikes for Joel, kills for Joel. Joel believes himself to be purely the observer during these sections, no longer responsible for the actions he commits in order to stay alive; this is how Joel the character copes with what he's done, and what he's doing.
But, when key events begin to occur (cutscened events), Joel can no longer allow his "auto-pilot" to be in control; no, what's happening before his eyes requires his rationality, his experience, his input, his decision-making; because he believes that what is about to happen in front of him in that moment is something that will fundamentally change himself, Joel the man, as a whole... and the possible consequences to his persona could be far too fulfilling or damaging to let his dissociated animalistic survival "auto-pilot" (the player) decide for him.
Thus, control is taken away from us players during potentially character-altering events, and Joel the character takes over from us. This is The Last of Us' player-character dynamic.
You, the "auto-pilot", aren't meant to share Joel's sentiments or his motives. You are simply a means to an end, an aspect of Joel the character that he himself may not like, but needs to live and to live with himself. You, as a real-life individual in real reality, may either agree or disagree with fictional character Joel's sentiments or motives; but in Joel's reality, Joel's world, your sentiments and motives don't exist. In Joel's world, in Joel, you are merely a fraction of him, an employee of Joel Inc., the janitor who takes out Joel's trash for Joel.
A fraction that can be overriden by the whole of Joel at any time.
You, the player, are essentially Joel's persona's 'executor/scapegoat aspect' for his sins.
You are not the Whole Joel.
Thus, you the player shouldn't be allowed to make the Whole Joel's decisions for him. As a fraction, you must suffer the whole.
And in the end, The Last of Us wasn't written for player agency. It was written for Joel.
-
But, Blargonaut, there are times in cutscenes/key events where Whole Joel is entirely the one performing the crimes:
; where, Whole Joel himself is the murderer, not us player "auto-pilots" who are supposed to be Joel's SA-X! AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO BE ENTITLED TO MAKE THOSE CHOICES FOR JOEL?
And well, to that, I say again; in those situations, the possible consequences to his persona could be far too fulfilling or damaging to let his dissociated animalistic survival "auto-pilot" (the player) decide for him. IN TIMES SUCH AS THOSE, JOEL THE MAN MUST COMMAND, NOT JOEL THE FILTHY ANIMAL.
The Last of Us is Joel's story.
You weren't meant to be the full Joel.
I believe the player was more like Joel's "auto-pilot", the dissociated aspect of his psyche that was the pure skill-applying survival instinct necessary to survive in his post-apocalyptic world. You, the player, were this aspect, this piece, of Joel.
This is how I interpreted the player-Joel relationship:
During the combat sections of the game, Joel essentially lets his "auto-pilot" (you, the player) take over. "Auto-pilot/you" shoots for Joel, stabs for Joel, strikes for Joel, kills for Joel. Joel believes himself to be purely the observer during these sections, no longer responsible for the actions he commits in order to stay alive; this is how Joel the character copes with what he's done, and what he's doing.
But, when key events begin to occur (cutscened events), Joel can no longer allow his "auto-pilot" to be in control; no, what's happening before his eyes requires his rationality, his experience, his input, his decision-making; because he believes that what is about to happen in front of him in that moment is something that will fundamentally change himself, Joel the man, as a whole... and the possible consequences to his persona could be far too fulfilling or damaging to let his dissociated animalistic survival "auto-pilot" (the player) decide for him.
Thus, control is taken away from us players during potentially character-altering events, and Joel the character takes over from us. This is The Last of Us' player-character dynamic.
You, the "auto-pilot", aren't meant to share Joel's sentiments or his motives. You are simply a means to an end, an aspect of Joel the character that he himself may not like, but needs to live and to live with himself. You, as a real-life individual in real reality, may either agree or disagree with fictional character Joel's sentiments or motives; but in Joel's reality, Joel's world, your sentiments and motives don't exist. In Joel's world, in Joel, you are merely a fraction of him, an employee of Joel Inc., the janitor who takes out Joel's trash for Joel.
A fraction that can be overriden by the whole of Joel at any time.
You, the player, are essentially Joel's persona's 'executor/scapegoat aspect' for his sins.
You are not the Whole Joel.
Thus, you the player shouldn't be allowed to make the Whole Joel's decisions for him. As a fraction, you must suffer the whole.
And in the end, The Last of Us wasn't written for player agency. It was written for Joel.
-
But, Blargonaut, there are times in cutscenes/key events where Whole Joel is entirely the one performing the crimes:
e.g., Joel's interrogation of the goons scene, or the final Marlene confrontation scene
And well, to that, I say again; in those situations, the possible consequences to his persona could be far too fulfilling or damaging to let his dissociated animalistic survival "auto-pilot" (the player) decide for him. IN TIMES SUCH AS THOSE, JOEL THE MAN MUST COMMAND, NOT JOEL THE FILTHY ANIMAL.
Okay so for the Order
the thing is while your supposed to sympathies with the son you are not supposed to take everything he said for face value. He, though the simple fact of trying to spread his kind, is a threat to humanity. Also the father new about the son, but not his underhanded dealing with the count (who is separately trying to spread vampirisum). As for Galahad, even though he was spurned by the order, he basically still believes in it's necessity. He's the tortured patriot, kinda like the boss in MGS 3. So the story does make sense, but if you were to say they didn't take enough time to really set that up I would understand that, but I liked the story well enough to hope for a sequel.
ClayKavalier
Banned
You can interpret it in ways that make sense, it's really clumsy though. Everything in the game is. "We don't have time to distinguish which of these guys are double agents and which are innocents, so make sure you brutally murder everyone you come across!" The broad strokes of the story may be interesting but it's horribly told.
I don't buy your portrayal of Galahad.
The Order is inadvertently aiding the spread of the vampires and werewolves. In what way does Galahad find it necessary? If he really cares about the Order's goals he'd expose it. By refusing to he's acting counter to The Order's purpose. For what? To maintain a reputation he knows the Order doesn't deserve?
I get what you mean with the MGS comparison, but that series is unashamedly ridiculous, over the top, and melodramatic. A game that takes itself as seriously as The Order doesn't get away with that characterization.
Zeuanimals
Member
Well, why stop at two choices if choice really is that great for immersion. Maybe I wouldn't do either. It's that sort of thing that pisses me off about the Infamous series.
That's how I saw it.
Grayson's in a catch 22. He basically had the rug pulled out from under him so fast he doesn't know how to process everything. He was exposed to a truth he never expected and banished from the organization he respected, all while dealing with the death of his mentor. It's not like his split with the Order was amicable. It'd be easy to grow vengeful and try to take down the Order, but I believe he holds onto the hope that the organization can be purged of its few conspirators and can truly help humanity. Lucan is a werewolf. He was hiding that, as was the Chancellor. They were part of the conspiracy and that's inexcusable. Lucan's death came for from the simple fact that Grayson was on a mission to eradicate lycans, not because the Chancellor told him too. He felt little pity.
I wouldn't be surprised if a sequel dealt with Grayson's mission to return the Order to it's former glory. There are plenty of people - like Lafayette and Igraine - who were blinding trying to help the Order despite it's corruption. The organization isn't bad; just its leadership is.
I wouldn't be surprised if a sequel dealt with Grayson's mission to return the Order to it's former glory. There are plenty of people - like Lafayette and Igraine - who were blinding trying to help the Order despite it's corruption. The organization isn't bad; just its leadership is.
I also REALLY hope we get a sequel.
I agree with you that it could be done better, but I don't think it takes that much stretching to see what they were going for.
Any great organization makes mistakes, and in this case the order (the only thing fighting against the evils of the world) would be torn down by the mistakes of one man. It runs with the theme of sacrifice, with the fact that Galahad isn't even his name, that the order is above himself. Keeping the order around is not contrary to it's mission. Also the theme doesn't have to be over the top like mgs to still be serviceable, it's just the basic sacrifice for the greater good but with a twist. also without his son to protect the dude in charge can go back to being good at his job, which at the beginning of the game it is hinted at.
LouisaFerre
Member
I feel like the director's vision is more important, but I can't help but feel that unless the director takes player choice into account, a game might not be the ideal way of telling that story. I feel like the gameplay and story of TLoU kind of held each other back.
SunBroDave
Member
TLOU did have a positive ending of sorts: Joel and Ellie got to stay together.
ClayKavalier
Banned
Letting the Order go with no repercussions for it's doing IS contrary to its mission though. The Order's public defense of the trading company is
helping the spread of vampires and werewolves. In order for Galahad's actions to make sense, he needs to somehow make sure the Order not only cuts ties to the company, but openly brings it down. That's going to be hard since no one in the Order, besides the French guy, trusts him at all. Galahad let the leader guy retain all of the power in the situation by just letting him go.
So Galahad has this seemingly impossible task of setting things right, and in the meantime werewolves and vampires are being shipped all over the world with the Order's public consent. Which, like I said, is the exact opposite of the Order's intended purpose of preventing the spread of those things.
What exactly does Galahad gain by his sacrifice?
And it seems like a pretty big stretch to think the leader is going to suddenly be awesome again just because his son is dead. He could have looked into the trading company and stopped their monster shipping without revealing his son's secret. The guy isn't trustworthy.
So Galahad has this seemingly impossible task of setting things right, and in the meantime werewolves and vampires are being shipped all over the world with the Order's public consent. Which, like I said, is the exact opposite of the Order's intended purpose of preventing the spread of those things.
What exactly does Galahad gain by his sacrifice?
And it seems like a pretty big stretch to think the leader is going to suddenly be awesome again just because his son is dead. He could have looked into the trading company and stopped their monster shipping without revealing his son's secret. The guy isn't trustworthy.
Anyway, this is just one example, my general point was that if you're going to force me to move the plot in a specific way, I better understand why.
I think it was perfect. The way ND told the story through environment, events and characters was unique. I may not agree what choice Joel made in the end, but this made him into a "real" person for me. He went through alot and this made him in the end the person who he is. In my opinion a choice could have worked, but I loved the way it ended. This was never my story, it was the story of Joel. I am glad they went with no choice. Something that makes me always think is the ending of Mass Effect 3. I havent played it, but I followed the discussion about it a bit. It made me think quite alot. I think no writer has to change something only because the fans demand it. If thats his or her vision then I have to accept that. Who am I to think I am entitled to anything. They created this universe and they can end the story they think is best.
It's not a choice based game. You just take those character places.
It's a good game, and it's not worse for being linear. But calling that ending the sad one is not true at all.
It's a good game, and it's not worse for being linear. But calling that ending the sad one is not true at all.
That is Joel's happy ending, sad would be if Ellie was sacrificed and it was for nothing. Even Ellie being sacrificed and resulting in something would be tragic for Joel.
ND's purely average shooting mechanics hold back their games to me but they still do gangbusters critically and commercially, so what do I know?
Can we please not pretend that arbitrary forks in the store suddenly make us immersed in the game?
Candescence
Member
Though I am a major proponent of player agency and narrative interactivity, I do agree that, in many cases where the player character actually has a pre-defined personality and character arc, that it is often best to restrict choices to what the character would actually do, and override the player if necessary.
Some protagonists are more flexible in that regard than others - Adam Jensen from Deus Ex: Human Revolution, for example, while he does have a defined personality (if not exactly that fleshed out), he can believably use a variety of arguments during social boss fights, and has his own internal conflicts, especially when his loyalty to Sarif might get in the way of doing the right thing, such as that game's ending choices. And then there's the
sequence, when the game is actually subtle about the possible choice you can make, and it's all the more powerful for it - it gives you a sequence where you know Adam would likely make a certain choice, but you're not certain that said choice can be made or even executed, and it's all the more satisfying when you realize that it can be done and you actually achieve it, and it's one of the game's most powerful sequences. The ending of The Last of Us could in theory have been done the same way, where the player could have been the one to pull the trigger rather than Joel, but the developers chose to keep things linear, which is fair enough for the type of game they wanted to make, and not not really 'wrong', just subjective. That being said, I wish games did more subtle choices that force the player to take the initiative rather than said choice being explicitly spelled out.
It's subjective, and I want more games that do away with cutscenes and whatnot, but what Naughty Dog did is merely artist's preference, and that's fine, as long as the end result is well-executed, and from what I'm seeing in this thread already, they got that one right, at least, unlike, say, Bioware, who were doing fine with Mass Effect 3 right up until the ending sequence, where they crashed and burned spectacularly. Even the extended cut DLC is only a marginal improvement, that's how bad it was.
Some protagonists are more flexible in that regard than others - Adam Jensen from Deus Ex: Human Revolution, for example, while he does have a defined personality (if not exactly that fleshed out), he can believably use a variety of arguments during social boss fights, and has his own internal conflicts, especially when his loyalty to Sarif might get in the way of doing the right thing, such as that game's ending choices. And then there's the
saving Malik
It's subjective, and I want more games that do away with cutscenes and whatnot, but what Naughty Dog did is merely artist's preference, and that's fine, as long as the end result is well-executed, and from what I'm seeing in this thread already, they got that one right, at least, unlike, say, Bioware, who were doing fine with Mass Effect 3 right up until the ending sequence, where they crashed and burned spectacularly. Even the extended cut DLC is only a marginal improvement, that's how bad it was.
ClayKavalier
Banned
I also think you have to think of the potential for a game to become a series too.
Something like Mass Effect is designed around player choice, but if Naughty Dog made two (or more) endings for Last of Us and if Joel or Ellie appears in the sequel they'd likely have to pick one to be the "canon" ending anyway.
Also, while I agree with the meaning behind your post, I think a lot of the backlash surrounding the ME3 ending was people feeling lied to. I remember a picture being posted a lot where someone who worked on the series said something along the lines of "The endings will be meaningful, we're not going to have all this culminate in 'Choose ending A, B, or C,' but then that's basically what it boiled down to.
I also didn't actually play it though.
