In a recent interview promoting the second season of The Last of Us, the hit HBO drama inspired by the games of the same name, series co-creator Neil Druckmann had a surprising answer when asked if we should expect a third game to come along and continue the story. “I guess the only thing I would say,” he replied, “is don’t bet on there being more of Last of Us. This could be it.” It’s an answer that was encouraging to some who feel the story has run its course, and no doubt disappointing for others who are holding out hope for more. I’m left somewhere in between. Of course it’s not up to me at all, but my pie-in-the-sky hope is that we do see a sequel of sorts to The Last of Us Part II, a kind of coda to conclude the series. But rather than being packed with more of the suspenseful violence that helped make The Last of Us one of the most well-known game franchises of all time, I hope the sequel leaves it behind entirely.
(Note: this post will discuss the ending of The Last of Us Part II, so if you’re only discovering the story via the TV show, there may be what you consider spoilers ahead.)
The remarks, which Druckmann made during an interview with Variety, aren’t the worst news I could have heard about the future of The Last of Us. If my choices are between another hyperviolent entry in the series and no game at all, I’ll choose the latter, because while I admire the first two games, I don’t think there’s anywhere meaningful left to take from the violence at their core. The characters have already suffered so much, endured so much, and wrought so much violence themselves; what’s to be gained from seeing them continue to be trapped in this vicious cycle, enacting even more brutal violence on each other?
No. In my opinion, the only place to go from the second game’s crescendo of brutality and bloodshed, which ultimately sees one major character spare the life of another she has fought very hard to kill, is to explore who these characters become and what they’re left with after breaking the cycle. The only meaningful way forward for the series, it seems to me, is in seeing these characters forge some kind of new path for themselves that, at long last, leaves the violence which has exacted such a terrible price behind.
In all likelihood, such a game would never get made because that violence is considered core to the series’ marketability. The nailbiting and often staggeringly brutal combat is what makes them blockbusters. And yet, if any studio working in the so-called “AAA” space can challenge the notion that a game in a franchise like The Last of Us needs to involve violence, it’s Naughty Dog. After all, this is the team that produced the work which, more than any other game up to this point, goes against the conventional wisdom about M-rated AAA games: Left Behind, the story-focused DLC expansion for The Last of Us.
This release took mechanics that had been components of the original game’s brutal combat—stealthy sneaking, brick throwing, and so on--and recontextualized them as the stuff of bonding and play between Ellie and her friend (and crush) Riley while they explore an abandoned mall. Left Behind did still have combat in it; Ellie had to fight both humans and infected in the game’s “present day,” in between flashbacks to her trip to the mall with Riley. Even so, the DLC chapter illuminated the possibility for releases to exist in the AAA space that are more about storytelling, character interaction, and environmental exploration than about traditional video-game action.
So here’s what I’d love a follow-up to The Last of Us Part II to be: a new chapter, perhaps somewhat akin to Left Behind, that de-emphasizes combat or abandons it altogether, and focuses its energies entirely on bringing the story to a close that shows the characters carrying on their lives now that the circle of violence has been broken. Who can they be, now that they are no longer pursuing vengeance? What kind of relationships can they form? What kind of world can they try to build, for themselves and each other? I think these are fascinating questions, rich with storytelling possibility. I especially want to see Lev, a character introduced in The Last of Us Part II who is only just beginning to come into his own by the time the game ends, get to discover and define himself.
Truth be told, I think the shocking violence of the existing two games could be given new meaning if we really get to see the characters, at long last, finding their way out of it, out of its limiting and destructive patterns that have cost them all so much. We are not doomed to live that way. We can make better choices. And the remarkable thing about such a game is that, in illuminating new possibilities for the lives of its characters, it would also show new possibilities for the realm of AAA games.
I don’t think it has to be a 25-hour epic like Part II was. A coda that just lasts three hours or so, and that maybe sells for $20, would be just fine. We know Naughty Dog isn’t abandoning blockbuster video game action; they’ve got the very high-concept Intergalactic in the works. I think that game looks rad, and I hope it sells like hotcakes. But what if, in addition to doing mainstream commercial work like that, Naughty Dog was able, with Sony’s full support, to produce something riskier, something less commercial that defied the rigid expectations that hold so much sway in mainstream gaming? Isn’t there value in making bold artistic choices, in broadening people’s notions of what’s possible within a space? It may not make heaps of money, but I bet a move like that would earn respect and be very exciting to those who care about games as an art form.
In a piece about The Last of Us Part II, I lamented all the things the game, in its endless, indulgent violence, didn’t show us:
Why don’t we get to see Ellie doing the work of trying to be a better person? Why don’t we get to see her trying to rebuild things with Dina, and trying to internalize what Joel said to her, that she deserves to love and be loved? Because these remain the limits of AAA games. Because that’s the part where no shooting happens, and therefore it remains outside the scope of a game like this. Because we’re still so trapped.
We don’t have to be trapped anymore, though. Naughty Dog has demonstrated that it’s more than capable of brilliantly creating the kind of interactive storytelling that could give The Last of Us the poignant, meaningful coda it deserves. I don’t really want a standard Part III for this series, not if it comes with even more of the horrifying, senseless, profoundly costly violence that has defined the series up to this point. But a game that breaks that cycle? That lets the series end on a note of tenderness, of muted, grounded hope for a better world or a different way of life? Yeah. That I’d like to see.
.