A Case Study in Woke Culture Over Substance

[cypher]

I have seen some posts and threads on this forum asking what are the woke elements in TLOU 2, and why the game is considered woke. I have also seen some people claim, "Oh, It's because Ellie is a lesbian," "It's because Lev is trans," or "it's because Abby looks like a dude." And I wanted to go in detail over the woke elements present in this game.

If there’s one thing The Last of Us Part II made clear, it’s that Naughty Dog cared more about pushing an agenda than crafting a great story. What should have been an emotional, character-driven continuation of a beloved classic was instead hijacked by social justice messaging, forced diversity, and identity politics that took precedence over narrative depth. Let’s break down exactly why this game became the ultimate showcase of modern gaming’s obsession with woke ideology.

1. Forced Diversity That Feels Artificial
Diversity in games is great—when it feels natural. The Last of Us Part II doesn’t even try to make it organic. Instead, it approaches diversity like a corporate checklist, making sure to cram in as many identity markers as possible, regardless of whether they add anything to the story. Ellie’s relationship with Dina feels less like a natural romance and more like an advertisement for the game’s progressive credentials. It’s constantly emphasized, not because it serves the plot in a meaningful way, but because it checks a box.

Then there’s Lev, a transgender character whose entire existence revolves around his identity. Rather than being a fully fleshed-out character with goals and struggles beyond his gender, he is reduced to a symbol for social commentary. Instead of enhancing the world or contributing to the overall theme, Lev feels like a last-minute addition designed to score points with activists and progressive gaming media.

2. The Systematic Undermining of Masculinity
One of the clearest examples of The Last of Us Part II’s woke agenda is its treatment of traditional masculinity. Joel, the strong and morally complex father figure from the first game, is discarded in the most degrading way possible—beaten to death while Ellie watches, unable to do anything. This is no accident; it’s a clear statement that the rugged, protective male archetype is outdated and must be torn down.

Meanwhile, male characters in the game are either weak, irrelevant, or outright villainous. Jesse, one of the few competent men, is unceremoniously killed off without any real impact. The remaining men are either passive, incompetent, or exist solely to serve female characters. At the same time, the most physically dominant and aggressive character in the game is Abby, a woman with an exaggerated, unrealistic body type that makes her look more like a professional MMA fighter than a survivor in a post-apocalyptic world. The message is clear: traditional strong male figures are obsolete, and only women can be the true powerhouses in this narrative.

3. The Game’s Insistence That You Love Abby
Abby is not just an unlikable character—she’s designed to challenge players’ ability to sympathize with her. The developers don’t just introduce her as Joel’s killer; they force players to spend half the game playing as her, as if hammering home the idea that you must see things from her perspective. The problem? The game never gives Joel the same level of sympathy or depth in this installment. He’s executed early on, given no redemption, and then the rest of the game is spent trying to justify Abby’s actions.

This is a classic example of modern media forcing “morally grey” narratives in a way that feels less like storytelling and more like ideological lecturing. It’s not enough for the audience to understand Abby—they are expected to embrace her as a protagonist, despite the game doing everything possible to make her unlikable.

4. The Feminist Power Fantasy at the Core of the Game
A major aspect of The Last of Us Part II’s woke agenda is its over-the-top feminist messaging. The game doesn’t just feature strong women—it goes out of its way to assert that women must be dominant while men are either weak or expendable. Abby embodies this entirely. She’s physically superior to every man in the game, suffers no real consequences for her actions, and is framed as a justified and righteous character despite committing brutal, unforgivable acts.

Meanwhile, Ellie, the actual protagonist, is stripped of her strength by the end of the game. Instead of allowing her to have a proper arc, the story leaves her broken, alone, and without resolution. This isn’t just a bleak ending—it’s an intentional statement about how vengeance, justice, and even personal agency are not meant for her character. Abby, on the other hand, is allowed to walk away, effectively victorious. The message is clear: the “old way” of telling stories, where male characters were the driving force and female characters faced consequences, is outdated. Instead, the new era demands that female power come at the cost of deconstructing traditional heroes.

5. Naughty Dog’s Dishonest Marketing
Naughty Dog knew that if they revealed the full truth about The Last of Us Part II, the backlash would have been immediate. That’s why they deliberately misled players in the trailers, showing Joel in scenes that he was never actually in. They tricked fans into thinking this was a story about Joel and Ellie’s journey, only to pull the rug out from under them in the most cynical way possible.

If the developers truly believed in their creative vision, why lie about it? Because they knew the truth wouldn’t sell. They wanted people to buy into the sequel based on nostalgia, only to hit them with a narrative that served their ideological goals rather than honoring the story and characters that made the original game great.

6. Neil Druckmann: The Architect of the Agenda
A major reason The Last of Us Part II became such a woke disaster is Neil Druckmann himself. As the game’s director, he has openly admitted to being inspired by modern feminist literature and progressive ideology, injecting those ideas into the game at the expense of good storytelling. Instead of respecting the foundation of the first game, he used the sequel as a vehicle for his personal views, sacrificing beloved characters and established themes to serve his agenda.

Druckmann’s handling of the backlash only made things worse. Instead of acknowledging valid criticism, he dismissed unhappy fans as toxic or unable to handle “mature storytelling.” He doubled down on his decisions, portraying the game’s critics as bigots rather than engaging with their concerns. This kind of arrogance is exactly why The Last of Us Part II became more about proving a political point than delivering a satisfying continuation of Joel and Ellie’s journey.

Under his leadership, Naughty Dog has shifted from a studio that focused on masterful storytelling to one obsessed with pushing cultural narratives. If The Last of Us Part II is any indication, Druckmann’s influence is steering the company toward further ideological preaching, rather than delivering the groundbreaking games they were once known for.

Conclusion: When Ideology Takes Priority Over Storytelling
At its core, The Last of Us Part II isn’t just a bad sequel—it’s an agenda-driven project that prioritizes woke messaging over storytelling, immersion, and respect for its audience. Every major narrative choice, from the forced diversity to the demonization of masculinity, feels like it was designed to cater to a very specific social agenda rather than crafting a natural and compelling follow-up to the first game.
It could have been a masterpiece. Instead, it chose to lecture, to alienate, and to deconstruct everything that made The Last of Us a beloved classic in the first place. And that is why The Last of Us Part II will always be remembered as the perfect example of ideology undermining great storytelling.

[cypher]

Originally posted by Imhigh:

Originally posted by Q:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIwprXCgLCY

1000% quality writting.

Oh muh god a dumb joke.. The writings bad people dont tell bad jokes in real loife

Think about it, she could forgive the person who killed her father but not the person who was mean to her and offered a sandwich as an apology. Genius writing.

[Unknownsurfin]

Originally posted by VDRSK:

Did you reward your own post?

No i and others with brains capable of reading, intellect and coherency that are contributors to socitey awarded this post with what it deserved

[Unknownsurfin]

Originally posted by Coldflame:

Originally posted by cypher:

can you explain to me in details what i got wrong ? I'm always willing to learn and correct myself.

Rebuttal: The Last of Us Part II and the Misconception of "Woke Culture Over Substance"

The claim that The Last of Us Part II prioritizes "woke ideology" over storytelling is based on subjective assumptions rather than objective analysis. The game is not an agenda-driven propaganda piece, but rather a deeply ambitious narrative that explores complex themes of revenge, trauma, and the consequences of violence. Below, I address the key criticisms leveled at the game and provide counterarguments that challenge the assertion that it was derailed by social justice messaging.

1. Diversity Is a Reflection of Reality, Not a Checklist

The argument that diversity in The Last of Us Part II is "forced" is flawed because it assumes that representation is only valid if it appears unplanned or incidental. However, the game's diverse cast aligns with the reality of the world it depicts.

Ellie and Dina's Relationship: The suggestion that Ellie’s relationship with Dina exists purely to check a diversity box ignores the emotional depth of their interactions. Their relationship serves to highlight Ellie’s struggle with love, loss, and the cost of revenge. The game never presents their romance as a spectacle; rather, it treats it with the same authenticity as any other relationship in storytelling.

Lev’s Identity: Lev being transgender is an integral part of his character arc, providing insight into the oppression of marginalized groups in dystopian societies. His storyline is not an exercise in "scoring points," but rather a meaningful exploration of identity and resilience under oppressive circumstances. To dismiss his presence as "forced diversity" is to ignore the richness of his character development and the role he plays in Abby’s own growth.

2. Joel’s Death and the Myth of "Undermining Masculinity"

The claim that Joel’s death is part of an effort to "systematically undermine masculinity" is a misinterpretation of the game’s themes. Joel’s murder is not a statement against masculinity—it is a narrative decision rooted in the consequences of his past actions. The first game established Joel as a deeply flawed protagonist who made a controversial choice to save Ellie at the expense of the Fireflies’ mission. Abby’s vengeance is a natural consequence of that decision.

Furthermore, the idea that male characters in the game are deliberately made weak or villainous is inaccurate:

Jesse is portrayed as competent and compassionate until his tragic demise, reinforcing the brutality of the world rather than making a statement against masculinity.

Tommy plays a significant role and is depicted as a resourceful, determined figure throughout the story.

Owen, while flawed, is given moral complexity rather than being written off as disposable.

The game does not erase strong male figures; rather, it challenges the notion that traditional masculinity is untouchable and that all male heroes must follow the same archetype.

3. Abby’s Role and the Challenge of Player Perspective

The criticism that the game “forces” players to sympathize with Abby disregards the purpose of storytelling: to explore multiple perspectives.

The Last of Us has always been about moral ambiguity. In the first game, players were expected to empathize with Joel despite his morally questionable decisions. The second game extends this challenge to Abby, asking players to reconsider the cycle of revenge from a different viewpoint.

The idea that Abby is "unlikable" is subjective. She is portrayed as a complex character who experiences loss, growth, and moral dilemmas, much like Ellie. The discomfort players feel in controlling her is intentional—it mirrors the themes of hatred and redemption that the game seeks to explore.

4. The "Feminist Power Fantasy" Misconception

The assertion that Abby is an unrealistic feminist power fantasy is based on an exaggerated interpretation of her character design. Abby’s physique is the result of intensive training in a militant faction within a post-apocalyptic world. Strength is a survival necessity, not a political statement.

Additionally, the idea that Ellie is "stripped of her strength" while Abby is "victorious" misrepresents the ending. Both characters suffer losses, and neither emerges as a triumphant hero. The game's conclusion underscores the emptiness of revenge, rather than elevating one character over the other.

5. Naughty Dog’s Marketing and Narrative Subversion

While the trailers for The Last of Us Part II were misleading, this was a deliberate artistic choice to preserve the emotional impact of Joel’s death. Many successful games and films have used similar tactics to avoid spoilers. The decision was not about "hiding a political agenda" but rather about maintaining narrative tension.

6. Neil Druckmann’s Vision: Art Over Ideology

The idea that Neil Druckmann "sacrificed good storytelling for ideology" is a reductive argument that disregards the artistic integrity of the game. Druckmann and the development team crafted a story that challenges expectations, something that great narratives often do. The backlash against the game often stems from discomfort with change and subverted expectations rather than a legitimate failure in storytelling.

Conclusion: A Story That Challenges, Not Lectures

The Last of Us Part II is not "ruined" by diversity, feminism, or any so-called agenda. It is a bold, emotional, and divisive game that takes risks in storytelling. The critiques that frame it as "woke propaganda" often stem from a resistance to evolving narratives rather than genuine narrative flaws.

Rather than being a victim of ideology, The Last of Us Part II is a testament to storytelling that challenges players, makes them uncomfortable, and forces them to confront the complexities of human nature.

AI SLOP that entirley leverages invalid langauge techniques, strawmanning, rhetoric fallacy in a failed "Rebutal" which does not nothing but further contextualise the validity of this post. "No U" Is the entire narative your post hinges on, falsley calling factual remarks and occurences as "Flawed Analysis" in an attempt to strawman and gaslight what anyone with a functioning brain can see in the game.

But calling it a "Challenger" or implementing it challenges when its entire premise is based on fallacy, fails to challenge anything or even remotley refute the original posters statements, you didnt rebute, you just made a failed attempt to reframe and shift it in order to justify it, but without manipulation you cant justify it.

[LeftIsBest-James]

Love it how everyone's turned into an art-critic dah-ling cos their hate-brigade failed.

[Coldflame]

Originally posted by Unknownsurfin:

Originally posted by Coldflame:

Rebuttal: The Last of Us Part II and the Misconception of "Woke Culture Over Substance"

The claim that The Last of Us Part II prioritizes "woke ideology" over storytelling is based on subjective assumptions rather than objective analysis. The game is not an agenda-driven propaganda piece, but rather a deeply ambitious narrative that explores complex themes of revenge, trauma, and the consequences of violence. Below, I address the key criticisms leveled at the game and provide counterarguments that challenge the assertion that it was derailed by social justice messaging.

1. Diversity Is a Reflection of Reality, Not a Checklist

The argument that diversity in The Last of Us Part II is "forced" is flawed because it assumes that representation is only valid if it appears unplanned or incidental. However, the game's diverse cast aligns with the reality of the world it depicts.

Ellie and Dina's Relationship: The suggestion that Ellie’s relationship with Dina exists purely to check a diversity box ignores the emotional depth of their interactions. Their relationship serves to highlight Ellie’s struggle with love, loss, and the cost of revenge. The game never presents their romance as a spectacle; rather, it treats it with the same authenticity as any other relationship in storytelling.

Lev’s Identity: Lev being transgender is an integral part of his character arc, providing insight into the oppression of marginalized groups in dystopian societies. His storyline is not an exercise in "scoring points," but rather a meaningful exploration of identity and resilience under oppressive circumstances. To dismiss his presence as "forced diversity" is to ignore the richness of his character development and the role he plays in Abby’s own growth.

2. Joel’s Death and the Myth of "Undermining Masculinity"

The claim that Joel’s death is part of an effort to "systematically undermine masculinity" is a misinterpretation of the game’s themes. Joel’s murder is not a statement against masculinity—it is a narrative decision rooted in the consequences of his past actions. The first game established Joel as a deeply flawed protagonist who made a controversial choice to save Ellie at the expense of the Fireflies’ mission. Abby’s vengeance is a natural consequence of that decision.

Furthermore, the idea that male characters in the game are deliberately made weak or villainous is inaccurate:

Jesse is portrayed as competent and compassionate until his tragic demise, reinforcing the brutality of the world rather than making a statement against masculinity.

Tommy plays a significant role and is depicted as a resourceful, determined figure throughout the story.

Owen, while flawed, is given moral complexity rather than being written off as disposable.

The game does not erase strong male figures; rather, it challenges the notion that traditional masculinity is untouchable and that all male heroes must follow the same archetype.

3. Abby’s Role and the Challenge of Player Perspective

The criticism that the game “forces” players to sympathize with Abby disregards the purpose of storytelling: to explore multiple perspectives.

The Last of Us has always been about moral ambiguity. In the first game, players were expected to empathize with Joel despite his morally questionable decisions. The second game extends this challenge to Abby, asking players to reconsider the cycle of revenge from a different viewpoint.

The idea that Abby is "unlikable" is subjective. She is portrayed as a complex character who experiences loss, growth, and moral dilemmas, much like Ellie. The discomfort players feel in controlling her is intentional—it mirrors the themes of hatred and redemption that the game seeks to explore.

4. The "Feminist Power Fantasy" Misconception

The assertion that Abby is an unrealistic feminist power fantasy is based on an exaggerated interpretation of her character design. Abby’s physique is the result of intensive training in a militant faction within a post-apocalyptic world. Strength is a survival necessity, not a political statement.

Additionally, the idea that Ellie is "stripped of her strength" while Abby is "victorious" misrepresents the ending. Both characters suffer losses, and neither emerges as a triumphant hero. The game's conclusion underscores the emptiness of revenge, rather than elevating one character over the other.

5. Naughty Dog’s Marketing and Narrative Subversion

While the trailers for The Last of Us Part II were misleading, this was a deliberate artistic choice to preserve the emotional impact of Joel’s death. Many successful games and films have used similar tactics to avoid spoilers. The decision was not about "hiding a political agenda" but rather about maintaining narrative tension.

6. Neil Druckmann’s Vision: Art Over Ideology

The idea that Neil Druckmann "sacrificed good storytelling for ideology" is a reductive argument that disregards the artistic integrity of the game. Druckmann and the development team crafted a story that challenges expectations, something that great narratives often do. The backlash against the game often stems from discomfort with change and subverted expectations rather than a legitimate failure in storytelling.

Conclusion: A Story That Challenges, Not Lectures

The Last of Us Part II is not "ruined" by diversity, feminism, or any so-called agenda. It is a bold, emotional, and divisive game that takes risks in storytelling. The critiques that frame it as "woke propaganda" often stem from a resistance to evolving narratives rather than genuine narrative flaws.

Rather than being a victim of ideology, The Last of Us Part II is a testament to storytelling that challenges players, makes them uncomfortable, and forces them to confront the complexities of human nature.

AI SLOP that entirley leverages invalid langauge techniques, strawmanning, rhetoric fallacy in a failed "Rebutal" which does not nothing but further contextualise the validity of this post. "No U" Is the entire narative your post hinges on, falsley calling factual remarks and occurences as "Flawed Analysis" in an attempt to strawman and gaslight what anyone with a functioning brain can see in the game.

But calling it a "Challenger" or implementing it challenges when its entire premise is based on fallacy, fails to challenge anything or even remotley refute the original posters statements, you didnt rebute, you just made a failed attempt to reframe and shift it in order to justify it, but without manipulation you cant justify it.

Rebuttal to Accusations of “AI Slop” and Strawman Tactics

Your response appears more concerned with discrediting the tone and method of the rebuttal than addressing the actual substance of its arguments. Let's break it down constructively.

1. Claim: “Strawmanning” and “Gaslighting”
Calling a reasoned disagreement a “strawman” or “gaslighting” doesn’t make it so. A rebuttal is not a strawman simply because it refutes a claim with a different interpretation. For example, arguing that Ellie and Dina's relationship is meaningful character development rather than “box-checking” isn't misrepresenting the original point—it's offering a counterpoint. That’s what debate is.

As for gaslighting: disagreeing with an opinion is not an attempt to make someone “question reality.” It’s simply acknowledging that what some see as “obvious” (like forced diversity) can also be interpreted differently by people approaching it without preconceived ideological assumptions.

2. Claim: “No U” Narrative and Invalid Language Techniques
A rebuttal isn’t a “No U” if it systematically addresses points raised—character arcs, narrative structure, and thematic intent. It’s called analysis. Dismissing it all as “invalid language techniques” without citing which specific fallacies are being committed, or where, is ironically itself rhetorical hand-waving.

For example, saying “Joel’s death undermines masculinity” is not a factual claim—it’s an interpretation. Saying that Joel’s death serves a narrative function tied to consequence and trauma is a counter-interpretation, not a deflection.

3. Claim: “Fails to Refute the Original Post”
In truth, the rebuttal does refute it. It challenges the assumptions that:

Diversity = tokenism

Strong female characters = attack on men

Complex character arcs = forced sympathy

Subverted expectations = ideological betrayal

Just because the response doesn't agree with the initial framing doesn’t mean it “fails to refute.” It refutes by offering grounded counterarguments based on narrative analysis, character motivations, and game structure.

4. Emotional Language Doesn’t Equal a Strong Argument
Calling the rebuttal “AI slop” and appealing to what “anyone with a functioning brain can see” isn’t argumentation—it’s posturing. If your position is as strong as you believe, it would be better served by engaging point-for-point, not by resorting to vague insults or dismissals without substance.

If you’d like to have a genuine, nuanced discussion, I’m happy to continue. But that requires meeting arguments with arguments—not just labels.

[Danielle]

I love the implication that Abby isn't disempowered by her ending. when we find her she's like maybe an hour from death and emaciated. she's broken physically, which was where her strength was. her revenge quest was what got her there! it didn't work out for her either! killing joel cost her all of her friends! Please actually pay attention to the events that occur in the story!!!!

I've got a tonne of issues with tlou2 but "quests for revenge will destroy you" isn't some new "woke agenda" thing, it's one of the most common themes in storytelling, and generally people don't have an issue with it. Remember when John Wick did a big revenge quest and it just worked out amazing for him?

[Coldflame]

Originally posted by Danielle:

I love the implication that Abby isn't disempowered by her ending. when we find her she's like maybe an hour from death and emaciated. she's broken physically, which was where her strength was. revenge was what got her there! it didn't work out for her either! killing joel cost her all of her friends! Please actually pay attention to the events that occur in the story!!!!

game only has two cutscenes (joel killed with golf club and ellie spares abby in california) please stop pretending your fanfiction extra scenes are canon

[LeftIsBest-James]

Originally posted by Coldflame:

Originally posted by Unknownsurfin:

(dear God, definitely redacted)

(redacted)

I cant say I'm happy to see this.
But until they have a SaLT treaty on this I guess this is now it goes. 🚀🚀

[Coldflame]

Originally posted by LeftIsBest-James:

Originally posted by Coldflame:

(redacted)

I cant say I'm happy to see this.
But until they have a SaLT treaty on this I guess this is now it goes. 🚀🚀

if it works it works, chuds just can't resist arguing

[cypher]

Originally posted by Danielle:

I love the implication that Abby isn't disempowered by her ending. when we find her she's like maybe an hour from death and emaciated. she's broken physically, which was where her strength was. her revenge quest was what got her there! it didn't work out for her either! killing joel cost her all of her friends! Please actually pay attention to the events that occur in the story!!!!

I've got a tonne of issues with tlou2 but "quests for revenge will destroy you" isn't some new "woke agenda" thing, it's one of the most common themes in storytelling, and generally people don't have an issue with it. Remember when John Wick did a big revenge quest and it just worked out amazing for him?

Ah yes, Abby was emaciated and sad, so clearly the narrative punished her just as much as Ellie. Never mind that she gets a redemption arc, a boat, and a shot at peace—while Ellie loses everything and walks off into nothing. But sure, totally equal consequences.

Also, “revenge is bad” isn’t a revolutionary theme. It’s the plot of like, every third story ever. The issue isn’t what the game says—it’s how lazily it says it. TLOU2 tries to beat you over the head with forced parallels and "LOOK, SYMMETRY!" storytelling, expecting applause.

And bro… John Wick? Really? You’re comparing a stylized action fantasy where he kills with a f***ing pencil to a story about trauma and grief? That’s not a counterpoint, that’s a genre mix-up.

Yes, I paid attention. That’s exactly why I’m not buying what this game tried to sell.

[Coldflame]

Originally posted by cypher:

Originally posted by Danielle:

I love the implication that Abby isn't disempowered by her ending. when we find her she's like maybe an hour from death and emaciated. she's broken physically, which was where her strength was. her revenge quest was what got her there! it didn't work out for her either! killing joel cost her all of her friends! Please actually pay attention to the events that occur in the story!!!!

I've got a tonne of issues with tlou2 but "quests for revenge will destroy you" isn't some new "woke agenda" thing, it's one of the most common themes in storytelling, and generally people don't have an issue with it. Remember when John Wick did a big revenge quest and it just worked out amazing for him?

Ah yes, Abby was emaciated and sad, so clearly the narrative punished her just as much as Ellie. Never mind that she gets a redemption arc, a boat, and a shot at peace—while Ellie loses everything and walks off into nothing. But sure, totally equal consequences.

Also, “revenge is bad” isn’t a revolutionary theme. It’s the plot of like, every third story ever. The issue isn’t what the game says—it’s how lazily it says it. TLOU2 tries to beat you over the head with forced parallels and "LOOK, SYMMETRY!" storytelling, expecting applause.

And bro… John Wick? Really? You’re comparing a stylized action fantasy where he kills with a f***ing pencil to a story about trauma and grief? That’s not a counterpoint, that’s a genre mix-up.

Yes, I paid attention. That’s exactly why I’m not buying what this game tried to sell.

Let’s address the main points of your reply with some clarity:

1. “Abby gets a redemption arc, a boat, and a shot at peace” vs. “Ellie loses everything”
This framing assumes that any character who survives is automatically “rewarded.” But survival isn’t peace, and Abby’s ending isn’t redemption—it’s exhaustion. She’s traumatized, skeletal, robbed of her community, and barely clinging to life. The “boat” is symbolic of escape, not victory.

Ellie also survives. She has a shot at peace, too, but she’s left with the full weight of her choices. Both characters end up hollowed by their revenge. Abby’s physical strength is taken from her; Ellie loses emotional and relational anchors. That’s the point: they’re not mirror images, they’re cautionary variations.

2. “It’s not that revenge is bad, it’s how lazily the game says it”
Claiming the storytelling is lazy doesn’t hold much weight without specifics. The game constructs intricate, perspective-driven arcs that deliberately unsettle the player’s sympathies. The “symmetry” you mock is actually thematic mirroring: Ellie and Abby don’t just experience revenge—they become it, and are both destroyed by it in different ways. That’s not lazy. That’s a narrative structure designed to provoke discomfort and challenge your identification with the characters.

Just because a story emphasizes a common theme doesn’t mean it lacks depth. It’s how the theme is explored that matters. The Last of Us Part II explores it through loss, identity, empathy, and intergenerational trauma—not exactly surface-level stuff.

3. The “John Wick” Counterpoint
You're right to say that John Wick is a genre mix-up. That’s exactly what the original commenter was pointing out—audiences celebrate revenge when it's slick and stylized but reject it when it's emotionally grounded and morally gray. That is the point. It’s a meta-commentary on how we as players and viewers consume violence differently depending on presentation.

It’s not about saying TLOU2 should be like John Wick. It’s about examining why people are more comfortable with revenge when it’s decontextualized from grief, consequence, or moral complexity.

4. “I paid attention. That’s why I’m not buying it.”
Fair. But “paying attention” isn’t just watching cutscenes—it’s also engaging with the narrative choices on their terms, not just how we wish they’d gone. Disliking the execution is valid. But dismissing the entire structure as lazy or agenda-driven ignores the deliberate choices made to subvert expectations, deepen characters, and ask uncomfortable questions about empathy and violence.

Disagreement is fair game—but let’s not confuse “I didn’t like it” with “it failed.” The Last of Us Part II dared to alienate and unsettle, and for some, that’s the sign of a story that hit too close—not that it missed.

[Danielle]

Originally posted by cypher:

Originally posted by Danielle:

I love the implication that Abby isn't disempowered by her ending. when we find her she's like maybe an hour from death and emaciated. she's broken physically, which was where her strength was. her revenge quest was what got her there! it didn't work out for her either! killing joel cost her all of her friends! Please actually pay attention to the events that occur in the story!!!!

I've got a tonne of issues with tlou2 but "quests for revenge will destroy you" isn't some new "woke agenda" thing, it's one of the most common themes in storytelling, and generally people don't have an issue with it. Remember when John Wick did a big revenge quest and it just worked out amazing for him?

Ah yes, Abby was emaciated and sad, so clearly the narrative punished her just as much as Ellie. Never mind that she gets a redemption arc, a boat, and a shot at peace—while Ellie loses everything and walks off into nothing. But sure, totally equal consequences.

Also, “revenge is bad” isn’t a revolutionary theme. It’s the plot of like, every third story ever. The issue isn’t what the game says—it’s how lazily it says it. TLOU2 tries to beat you over the head with forced parallels and "LOOK, SYMMETRY!" storytelling, expecting applause.

And bro… John Wick? Really? You’re comparing a stylized action fantasy where he kills with a f***ing pencil to a story about trauma and grief? That’s not a counterpoint, that’s a genre mix-up.

Yes, I paid attention. That’s exactly why I’m not buying what this game tried to sell.

Ellie doesn't have nothing. She has messy baggage with a couple of the people that live back in jackson, but she's not an outlaw. She can literally just go home. She even has the opportunity to fix things with Dina - not a guarantee, clearly, but I give her good odds, since forgiveness is ALSO a big theme of the story.

She got to live, but ended up worse off than she started. That's true of both leads.

I don't really get your objection to the john wick thing. They're both stylised action adventures about embarking on a quest for revenge and needing two graves. They're hardly beyond comparison. (Also, if you think john wick wasn't about "trauma and grief" you might want to rewatch it? because it's good and also is explicitly about those things?)

[emahi011]

feminism is a demonic cult

[Imhigh]

Least feminist game of all time. So your a supporter

[cypher]

Originally posted by emahi011:

feminism is a demonic cult

i agree