A Masterclass in How to Ruin a Franchise

[cypher]

Let’s be real: The Last of Us Part II is one of the most insulting, pretentious, and downright offensive sequels in gaming history. This isn’t just a “bad” game—it’s a deliberate middle finger to the fans who loved the original. Naughty Dog took a masterpiece, a once-in-a-generation storytelling triumph, and mutilated it beyond recognition.

First off, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: Joel’s death. Killing off one of gaming’s most beloved protagonists in the first two hours isn’t just a bold move—it’s a slap in the face. And how does it happen? Joel, a hardened survivor who spent decades navigating a brutal post-apocalyptic world, suddenly decides to trust a group of complete strangers with no caution whatsoever. This isn’t just bad writing—it’s an assassination of his character. It’s lazy, nonsensical, and exists solely to shock the audience.

Then there’s Abby. Oh boy. The game forces you—forces you—to play as the very person who brutally murdered Joel with a golf club. Not only that, but the narrative goes out of its way to try and make you sympathize with her. It’s the equivalent of watching a movie where the villain kills the hero, and then the rest of the film is spent making you feel bad for the villain. It’s manipulative, and frankly, it doesn’t work. Abby isn’t just unlikeable; she’s insufferable. And yet, the game expects you to root for her? Get out of here.

And what about Ellie? Our protagonist, our girl, the one we followed through thick and thin in the first game? She gets the worst treatment of all. Her entire arc is reduced to a nihilistic, miserable slog where she loses everything—her friends, her fingers, and ultimately, her soul. And for what? To make some vague, pseudo-intellectual statement about the cycle of revenge? No thanks.

Gameplay-wise, sure, it’s polished. But what’s the point of a great combat system when you’re constantly being forced to play as a character you despise, trudging through a story that actively punishes you for caring about the original game? By the end, The Last of Us Part II isn’t just depressing—it’s exhausting. It’s a game that hates its own audience.

People can spin this however they want—"Oh, it’s supposed to make you feel uncomfortable!"—but there’s a fine line between challenging storytelling and outright disrespecting your fanbase. And The Last of Us Part II doesn’t just cross that line; it obliterates it.

If you loved this game, hey, more power to you. But for the rest of us, it stands as a shining example of how NOT to do a sequel.

Edit after being banned on April 24.

So I got temporarily Banned [imgur.com]from The Last of Us Part II Remastered community hub on Steam, and not for harassment, threats, or anything remotely extreme. No, it was for saying “no one wants to be associated with you people” in response to someone proudly gatekeeping the fandom and trashing anyone who didn’t worship the game. That’s it.

Let’s be real. This wasn’t about "toxicity" or "community safety." This was about stepping out of line with the approved narrative. Steam’s moderation system has clearly become another ideological echo chamber where only one side of a debate is allowed to speak freely. If you’re not clapping like a seal for every divisive writing choice or praising every piece of AAA content as sacred, you’re labeled “toxic” and tossed out like garbage.

What’s hilarious is the smug crowd that celebrates bans like this as if silencing disagreement is some moral victory. Imagine being so insecure in your opinion that a slightly spicy comment makes you scream for a moderator. You’re not defenders of art. You’re thought police roleplaying as victims. You don’t want a fandom. You want an echo chamber where the only acceptable emotion is praise and criticism gets you exiled.

Steam should be ashamed. If you can’t handle honest disagreement, even if it’s blunt, maybe you’re not cut out for community discourse. Banning people over a single sentence like that is pathetic. And anyone cheering for it is even worse.

[space]

ok chatgpt

[cypher]

Originally posted by space:

ok chatgpt

I've been hating on this game since before it was cool.

[episoder]

write a better plot that is engaging and has motivation to play for 20+ hours.

i have multiple ways to remedy this situation. from retcon to another chapter, to get your revenge on abby, this character you all don't like. and it's still progressing into a plot where you don't get to kill her. it's so much stuff anyway and i can't do it all alone.

[Lasagna Man Oven]

Franchise is stronger than ever lmao

[cypher]

Originally posted by episoder:

write a better plot that is engaging and has motivation to play for 20+ hours.

i have multiple ways to remedy this situation. from retcon to another chapter, to get your revenge on abby, this character you all don't like. and it's still progressing into a plot where you don't get to kill her. it's so much stuff, i can't do it all alone.

The plot prioritizes shock value and subversion over coherent storytelling, undermines established character arcs, and forces players to empathize with an antagonist while sidelining beloved protagonists, resulting in a divisive and unsatisfying narrative. This game is awful.

[cypher]

Originally posted by Lasagna Man Oven:

Franchise is stronger than ever lmao

The franchise is dead.

[episoder]

Originally posted by cypher:

The plot prioritizes shock value and subversion over coherent storytelling, undermines established character arcs, and forces players to empathize with an antagonist while sidelining beloved protagonists, resulting in a divisive and unsatisfying narrative. This game is awful.

where is the shock value at? joel's death? w/e. jackson is a safe space. you can play with that in mind why joel did help a survivor rather then questioning it. that easy of a mind set. sure... it backfired, but it works just like that. and... there's no better way to introduce the antagonist than to play as her. if not, you'd watch some random cutscenes to get her side of the story. dual helix plotting is tricky, but it does it pretty well. maybe you should watch the series. it's gonna do the plot justice without the interactive gameplay aspect. gotta trust the process.

[cypher]

Originally posted by episoder:

Originally posted by cypher:

The plot prioritizes shock value and subversion over coherent storytelling, undermines established character arcs, and forces players to empathize with an antagonist while sidelining beloved protagonists, resulting in a divisive and unsatisfying narrative. This game is awful.

where is the shock value at? joel's death? w/e. jackson is a safe space. you can play with that in mind why joel did help a survivor rather then questioning it. that easy of a mind set. sure... it backfired, but it works just like that. and... there's no better way to introduce the antagonist than to play as her. if not, you'd watch some random cutscenes to get her side of the story. dual helix plotting is tricky, but it does it pretty well. maybe you should watch the series. it's gonna do the plot justice without the interactive gameplay aspect. gotta trust the process.

Shock value isn’t just about a singular event; it’s about how a story prioritizes subversion over coherence. Joel’s death isn’t the issue—it’s how it was handled. The game relies on contrivances (Joel and Tommy dropping all caution for strangers) to force the moment, undermining established character traits. The ‘dual helix’ structure isn’t inherently bad, but here, it’s mishandled—Abby’s section is bloated, disrupts pacing, and forces sympathy instead of earning it organically. Good storytelling doesn’t demand that players ‘trust the process’; it earns their investment. The Last of Us Part II had potential, but execution matters, and many felt it failed in that regard.

[episoder]

Originally posted by cypher:

Shock value isn’t just about a singular event; it’s about how a story prioritizes subversion over coherence. Joel’s death isn’t the issue—it’s how it was handled. The game relies on contrivances (Joel and Tommy dropping all caution for strangers) to force the moment, undermining established character traits. The ‘dual helix’ structure isn’t inherently bad, but here, it’s mishandled—Abby’s section is bloated, disrupts pacing, and forces sympathy instead of earning it organically. Good storytelling doesn’t demand that players ‘trust the process’; it earns their investment. The Last of Us Part II had potential, but execution matters, and many felt it failed in that regard.

how else would you handled that moment? they were all escaping a horde getting into the chalet. into "safety". it just so happened it was occupied by the one person, that wants joel dead, and her gang. a normal story element. shruge

i dunno if i'll sympathise with abby's side of the story. for sure won't feel forced. some things don't have much value, but backstory, for sure, but it strenghtens the narrative, considering the development of the cure. her side also has nuances i rather dislike. but... it's a nice "filler" or inspiration to portray the greater scope of the world everybody lives in. and it's a lil different play style. all fine to me.

[cypher]

Originally posted by episoder:

Originally posted by cypher:

Shock value isn’t just about a singular event; it’s about how a story prioritizes subversion over coherence. Joel’s death isn’t the issue—it’s how it was handled. The game relies on contrivances (Joel and Tommy dropping all caution for strangers) to force the moment, undermining established character traits. The ‘dual helix’ structure isn’t inherently bad, but here, it’s mishandled—Abby’s section is bloated, disrupts pacing, and forces sympathy instead of earning it organically. Good storytelling doesn’t demand that players ‘trust the process’; it earns their investment. The Last of Us Part II had potential, but execution matters, and many felt it failed in that regard.

how else would you handled that moment? they were all escaping a horde getting into the chalet. into "safety". it just so happened it was occupied by the one person, that wants joel dead, and her gang. a normal story element. shruge

i dunno if i'll sympathise with abby's side of the story. for sure won't feel forced. some things don't have much value, for sure, but it strenghtens the narriative, considering the development of the cure. her side also has nuances i rather dislike. but... it's a nice "filler" to portray the greater scope of the world everybody lives in. and it's lil different play style. all fine.

The issue isn’t that Joel died—it’s that the setup contradicts established character logic. Joel and Tommy, both hardened survivors, blindly trusting strangers and giving their real names is out of character. The ‘horde escape’ doesn’t justify this lapse; they’ve survived worse without making reckless decisions. It’s contrived writing to force the outcome.

As for Abby, the problem isn’t just whether someone can sympathize with her—it’s that the game forces extended playtime as her while sidelining Ellie’s arc. Instead of allowing the player to naturally feel conflicted, it mandates empathy by making Abby the protagonist for half the game. Calling it ‘filler’ contradicts the game’s intent—it wants her story to be central, yet it disrupts pacing and narrative cohesion. A good story earns emotional investment; it doesn’t impose it.

[episoder]

Originally posted by cypher:

The issue isn’t that Joel died—it’s that the setup contradicts established character logic. Joel and Tommy, both hardened survivors, blindly trusting strangers and giving their real names is out of character. The ‘horde escape’ doesn’t justify this lapse; they’ve survived worse without making reckless decisions. It’s contrived writing to force the outcome.

As for Abby, the problem isn’t just whether someone can sympathize with her—it’s that the game forces extended playtime as her while sidelining Ellie’s arc. Instead of allowing the player to naturally feel conflicted, it mandates empathy by making Abby the protagonist for half the game. Calling it ‘filler’ contradicts the game’s intent—it wants her story to be central, yet it disrupts pacing and narrative cohesion. A good story earns emotional investment; it doesn’t impose it.

now you're repeating yourself. trying to force your opinion on me? i'm not having that, and i will end this "conversation". that easy. i don't have time to argue with a loop. waste of time and energy. and it's not gonna change anything, anyway. welp...

[el_loco_batty]

So... what's your point with this post? That everyone else just has your exact mindset and therefore you already know what we are going to feel or think about the game? The hubris...

[cypher]

Originally posted by episoder:

Originally posted by cypher:

The issue isn’t that Joel died—it’s that the setup contradicts established character logic. Joel and Tommy, both hardened survivors, blindly trusting strangers and giving their real names is out of character. The ‘horde escape’ doesn’t justify this lapse; they’ve survived worse without making reckless decisions. It’s contrived writing to force the outcome.

As for Abby, the problem isn’t just whether someone can sympathize with her—it’s that the game forces extended playtime as her while sidelining Ellie’s arc. Instead of allowing the player to naturally feel conflicted, it mandates empathy by making Abby the protagonist for half the game. Calling it ‘filler’ contradicts the game’s intent—it wants her story to be central, yet it disrupts pacing and narrative cohesion. A good story earns emotional investment; it doesn’t impose it.

now you're repeating yourself. trying to force your opinion on me? i'm not having that, and i will end this "conversation". that easy. i don't have time to argue with a loop. waste of time and energy. and it's not gonna change anything, anyway. welp...

Come back when you are ready.

[cypher]

Originally posted by el_loco_batty:

So... what's your point with this post? That everyone else just has your exact mindset and therefore you already know what we are going to feel or think about the game? The hubris...

Discuss the game.

[LeftIsBest-James]

hate brigades are cringe