5 hours ago
4 
The second season of The Last Of Us has been defined by growing pains, but its shortcomings highlight the narrative benefits of video games over TV.
After the first episode, I celebrated The Last Of Us season two’s initial changes from the game. Instead of the largely redundant retread of season one, fans of the source material this time had something to chew on beyond just live action novelty. How will the story work when Abby’s motivation is revealed so early? What is the significance of new characters like Gail? And why is Joel now the person who killed Eugene?
Following the rushed finale, the wish for these changes has become a classic monkey’s paw scenario. For every positive (and there are still many), an odd or unsatisfying choice has been lurking around the corner – to the point where I now think this story, structurally and in its emotional impact, simply works better as a video game.
Let’s start with the positives. After having some concern around whether Bella Ramsey could sell an older, more intimidating version of Ellie, these were mostly quashed during Ellie’s torture of Nora – for my money, the most effective, and harrowing, scene of the season. The show could do a better job of making Ramsey look older (it’s easy to forget a five year time jump has happened) but Ellie’s descent is hitting all the right, chilling notes.
Elsewhere, Kaitlyn Dever makes a big impression as Abby. despite having little screen time, and Jesse, played by Young Mazino, works far better here as a mirror to Ellie’s warped sense of morality.
The difficulty in portraying the latter is something the show is clearly wrestling with, and some of the changes in the HBO adaptation range from positive to perplexing. In the finale, pregnant Mel’s death is an accidental casualty of Ellie’s shoot-out with Owen instead of a venomous stab to the throat – a decision which helps make Ellie less of an irredeemable monster in her thirst for vengeance.
This alteration to keep you on Ellie’s side, however, is undercut by choices elsewhere. In the show, it’s explicitly spelled out that she knows Joel killed Abby’s father – a note which was left somewhat ambiguous in the game.
This could have been left as a heartbreaking realisation for Ellie, when she finally confronts Abby – the wake-up call where she discovers they’re both locked in the same cycle of hate at the expense of their loved ones. But now Ellie is still actively chasing Abby, and killing her friends, despite having this context. I don’t like to pick sides between vengeful murderers, but it doesn’t take an arbiter of morality to see the lesser of two evils here.
This decision might be why the pivotal flashback between Joel and Ellie, which comes at the end of the game and recontextualises her unrelenting desire for revenge, was pushed to an earlier spot. However, this choice has its own issues. Sure, audiences might better understand Ellie’s inconsiderate willingness to put others at risk to avenge Joel, but in terms of narrative twists, this story has no big cards left to play – unless the TV show has something new planned, for future seasons.
Between these reshuffled scenes, along with Joel’s more overtly evil characterisation, as someone who lied to Ellie again (!) and killed Eugene before he got his final wish, there’s a clumsiness in this season which has lessened some of the nuance. We might have a clearer sense of all the characters at play, but it’s made the show feel more flat as a result.
As such, the prospect of season three being focused on Abby’s story isn’t as enticing as it should be. The idea of pivoting the show’s cast and focus over an entire season is intriguing, as an unusual experiment in the realm of TV, but I don’t know what shocks or revelations it can deliver now we know Abby’s motivations at the outset.
If the next season does build up to the theatre confrontation with Ellie, albeit from Abby’s perspective, I’m not convinced TV audiences will have the same patience in waiting to see what happens next. This pivot was sustained in the game because the initial novelty was supported by the same gameplay loop, but when you’re relying on the narrative to keep the momentum going, a prolonged clock rewind is a much harsher buzzkill for the pace.
I’m curious how this season has landed with people who aren’t familiar with the games, but the show’s shortcomings, from my perspective, represent the benefits of video game storytelling over non-interactive entertainment. Joel’s death hits a lot harder after you’ve been fighting for survival in his shoes for hours beforehand, while the themes of cyclical violence strike a stronger chord when you’re the one firing the gun against all the very familar ‘enemies’.
The length of The Last Of Us Part 2 does undermine these qualities, and it’s far from perfect overall, but structurally the perspective shift forces you into positions designed to make players uncomfortable, notably in the fights between Ellie and Abby.
When you learn Abby’s side of the story, you don’t want to slash at her with a knife, or mash a button to strangle her throat. Every stab and punch lands with greater significance, and it’s an unsettling payoff which feels unique to video games – a medium where violence is rarely ever questioned or utilised for any other purpose outside of inconsequential thrills.
This is the magic of The Last Of Us Part 2 and a TV adaptation, no matter how much it alters or reshapes the narrative, cannot replicate these strengths as effectively. It doesn’t necessarily have to, but without these unique interactive qualities the biggest challenge for the TV show is what it can offer instead. Based on this season, the only answer seems to be the novelty of live action itself.
Email [email protected], leave a comment below, follow us on Twitter, and sign-up to our newsletter.
To submit Inbox letters and Reader’s Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use our Submit Stuff page here.
For more stories like this, check our Gaming page.
Bengali (Bangladesh) · 
English (United States) ·