The BRUTAL Irony of The Last of Us (and Other "Cinematic" Games)

[@SteveJubs]

It doesn’t say “you would do these things, you would bond with Ellie, etc.” It says “Joel would do these things, Joel would bond with Ellie, etc.” It’s just role playing.

[@simplysmiley4670]

And at the same time the supposed intention is to make the _player_ feel bad for what _the player_ does, rather then feel bad for the characters, while giving the player no choice to make the terrible things done by the characters matter all that much.

[@SteveJubs]

@simplysmiley4670 Supposed by whom? Never got that from the game personally. This isn’t Spec Ops: The Line we’re talking about here, and I see no indication that anything like that was the intention when they were making The Last of Us. It’s a character study that puts you in the shoes of the character it’s studying. That’s why all your choices are so constrained. You’re there to understand what it feels like to make the choices this character would make, not to explore what choices you yourself would actually make in these situations. Again, it’s just the basics of role playing.

[@judgement20nyx83]

"The curtains were fucking blue" type of situation

[@mauriciopitta]

It's Joel who does these things, but the player feels precisely because they're performing the role. It's Joel's story, the question is aimed at him, but also at the player who is roleplaying him. To the question "is it cinema or a game", it's neither; it's theatre, and the player is an actor playing a role established by the writer. The actor has to cope with the questions imposed by the script and feels through their character, but the story, the problems and choices are not the actor's, but the character's.

[@i_am_a_dot]

That's a really good counter-point! I think that's another wrinkle that can be chalked up to TLOU being a game (vs a movie or whatever). It's a character study that wants you to act like the character by forcing you to make the decisions the character would make... to make you understand the character.

[@Tiwill]

6:12 That was such clever editing to illustrate what you were talking about in that moment, with the logos not following the camera as you looked away :0

[@Wlightning25]

This video made me think of The Stanley Parable. The whole point of that game was going off the rails and not doing what the developers intended you to do, but the irony is that the whole time the developers intend for the players to go off the rails. I do think a game like The Stanley Parable is probably the closest game I can think of that gives the player the most authority, but it still has its limitations. I never played it myself and have only watched let’s plays years ago when the game came out, so I could be off the mark.

[@shytendeakatamanoir9740]

The whole point of Stanley Parable is to show this illusion of choice. You're never truly free. Stanley is a literal non entity. You're constantly testing the limit, and marveling at the facts the game is many steps ahead.

[@Monarch280]

Man I love that dot guy

[@jaewho]

This reminds me of how some have written or spoken about how a lot of games (classic or modern) are less "games" and more performances. Think acting in plays, or perhaps more apt for this subject, movies. Games allow some freedom to improvise (otherwise, they would just be movies) and leniency for failure but the player ultimately plays out the scenario scripted for the experience. (An aside, but this is what makes livestreams and let's plays really interesting, because the games are actually being performed for an audience.) Great video as always! I already watched the uncensored version, but it was worth a repeat watch.

[@i_am_a_dot]

That's a fascinating idea! Would that be the counterpoint to something like eSports? eDramaClub? I'll have to look into that some more because it sounds really interesting. (And thank you so much for supporting on Patreon!)

[@seangdovic4967]

One thing I thought of when you mention giving players camera control is fixed cameras! So, it’s not always necessary to sacrifice gameplay in order to have more directed cinematography. Although, on the notion of “giving up control” I think it’s important to think of player agency AS an artistic choice rather than handing over the artistic reigns. It’s important to think of the tools of game design as means for artistic expression, which includes the design of agency. Giving the player agency can make them feel something or can say something as a piece of art… taking it away can also do those things too. We should treat the techniques of game design as intentional artistic decisions. We always think of taking away control/agency as the developers “forcing you to experience the game their way”. But giving the player agency is also the same. By giving the player agency, the developer is also forcing the player to experience the game their way. Yet we view it as a relinquishing of artistic intention rather than a part of artistic intention.

[@i_am_a_dot]

That is absolutely true! One of the things I find fascinating about games is how their design can make a player behave a certain way (and especially how that can relate to a character or a story). Perhaps I could have worded that section about "giving up control" a bit better but I totally agree about player agency being an artistic choice. On the note about fixed cameras, my mind immediately went to the original God of War trilogy and how important the directed camera is in those games. I suppose they are also cinematic in their own way. But I would also call the newer God of War games cinematic too but for a completely different reason.

[@seangdovic4967]

@@i_am_a_dot Yeah for sure, I’d love to see more games that align the player’s feelings/behaviors with the characters they are playing as. That’s actually one of my grievances with The Last of Us. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great game for sure. It does align the player and character to a certain extent through the survival gameplay, but it doesn’t go as deep as it could’ve. The creative director has always said it’s a game about love, which I strongly disagree with. As a video game, it’s more about violence than it is about love. I think there were plans for it to be more about love in the beginning of development. That paradoxical disconnect you were talking about (where you have a lot of agency in combat but no agency in the relationships), I don’t think that was intentional. I think it was the result of cut features. All the gameplay elements seem to have been designed to incorporate Ellie. With stealth, she might’ve been able to aid you (by distracting enemies) or affect you (by getting caught). Which that would transition into combat, where she could help you (as she does) but she also could’ve been affected (by taking damage like the player does). Which THAT would tie into the crafting systems, as now you’d have to weigh the value of making items for combat vs. taking care of yourself vs. taking care of Ellie. The design would work so perfectly to put the player in the shoes of Joel as a surrogate dad. Protecting Ellie, providing for her, taking care of her, etc. It seems like that would be the much more compelling and interesting experience. But my big issue is that I, as a player, never really had to do any of that stuff. Instead, the player (as you said) doesn’t have a choice. I didn’t get to care about Ellie in the same way Joel did because the game didn’t task me with those responsibilities. The hardships and responsibilities of parenthood are depicted almost entirely outside of player control (which is far from how a video game should explore those themes if you ask me). However, it’s pretty hard to believe that wasn’t the plan at one point (especially since one of the big inspirations for TLOU was ICO). Plus, there are a lot of bugs that point to Ellie’s involvement being removed (like for instance, enemies can still see Ellie during stealth, but in the final version of the game enemies are hardcoded to ignore her no matter what). … On the matter of agency, I think you hit the nail on the head when you talked about how everything you can do in a game is ultimately created by the developer. Which is very true. Not sure if there is any other way you could’ve worded this… I imagine this is a very hard concept for many to wrap their heads around: but even when the devs “give up control” they aren’t actually giving up control. They’re actually still controlling you in a weird way (now there’s another paradox for you haha). Giving the player freedom is forcing them to not be constrained or guided, which is exactly what the devs wants. Like, for instance, if the devs of BOTW want you to be free and you go off doing whatever you want, then you’re actually doing exactly what they intended you to do. The devs controlled you by not controlling you… paradoxically haha. … On the fixed camera point, I also enjoyed the original GOW games for sure! I also liked those camera systems, the camera really enhanced the spectacle! Resident Evil (especially the 2002 remake) and Silent Hill 2 also come to mind when I think of fixed cameras. I’m actually developing a game that heavily relies on a fixed camera. Maybe if I’m lucky my game will be a small part of bringing the fixed camera back haha. Personally, I’d say the difference between the old and new GOW games is the difference between having a cinematic style and wanting to be more like cinema. The old games were very much gameplay focused experiences that had a cinematic style (i.e. the fixed camera), but there weren’t as many cutscenes and the player generally had more moment to moment freedom/control. Whereas, the new games want to be more like cinema which means more emphasis on cutscenes, more scripted sequences with even tighter scripting which leads to more limited control, and generally trying to be less “game-y” (for lack of a better word). Personally, I wish narrative driven games would be more game-y. All of my favorite narratives in games don’t try to be like films at all, they tell stories in ways only video games could. This utilization of the medium to tell the story is something I actually think the original GOW does better than any other entry in the series. Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Paper’s Please, Half-Life 1 & 2, BioShock, MGS 1-3, Silent Hill 2, Journey, Spec-Ops: The Line, and Persona 5 are a few of my other favorite narrative driven games because they tell stories in ways that only games can (i.e. through gameplay/interactivity). I really love games that show how special the video game medium is instead of just trying to be cinema. Although, I will say TLOU has a lot of good moments where gameplay is used to tell the story (like the intro where you play as Joel’s daughter, or protecting Ellie in Bill’s trap while she cuts you down, or when she gets mad at you and is less responsive which ends with her covering you using the rifle, or when she protects you after you get severely wounded at the university, or how they subvert the ladder interaction to build tension/intrigue before the giraffe reveal, or saving Ellie from David, and of course saving her from the Fireflies at the end). Honestly, TLOU would’ve been one of my favorite stories in games if Ellie was a more consistent part of the core gameplay. If the player had to care about Ellie in the same way Joel does, it would’ve been perfect to me. Although, as it is, I think it relies too heavily on cutscenes to communicate the theme of love and not nearly enough on gameplay (which imo gameplay should be the most important part).

[@venabre]

Every artistic decision an author makes has pros and cons. Every artistic medium has strengths and weaknesses. It is up to the authors to decide which tools they need to tell the story they want to tell and what the experience of going through that story is going to be like. Sometimes you can get everything to play along nicely. Sometimes you have elements that clash with one another. But what the goal is will dictate what to prioritize and what to ditch behind. As I watched the video I couldn't help but think of Tears of the Kingdom. Both it and Breath of the Wild are games that have focused their entirety on player freedom, and that comes with huge drawbacks for the narrative, as anyone who's played those games can attest. Yet, I can't bring myself to call their decision a mistake, because it was a decision made to keep in line with the objective they set out to accomplish in the beginning. It wasn't lack of care for the story, it was compromising the story for the sake of player freedom, in the same way that The Last of Us compromises player freedom for the sake of the story.

[@MegamanStarforce2010]

i'd say undertale is really the game that works on the polar opposite end of this. where every 'death' has meaning, every decision has meaning, and the gameplay and story are interconnected to the tightest degree.

[@megascopsasio2015]

This is a neat exploration of the style of storytelling in TLOU and also how different games give the player different amounts of agency, and it opens up broader discussions about free will, genre constraints, you name it. I appreciate how earnestly you approach such questions, and I hope this video inspires a lot of great discussion!

[@i8dacookies890]

Cosplaying a more prestigious medium isn't the best way to become a prestigious medium.

[@Rogeryoo]

A good compasion I've seen before is: What if you went to watch a movie, but the movie was just words on the screen. There's no movement, maybe has voiced lines and music, but at the end of the day, it's essentially just a book. If that's all movies were, would they really be something unique or interesting? Same thing with some of these more cinematic games. You can interact and play around with some stuff, but at the end of the day, it's essentially just a movie. If that's all games were, would they really be something unique or interesting?

[@i8dacookies890]

@@Rogeryoo I'd say its a bit more like a silent movie that turns into than whenever the cutscenes stop.

[@i_am_a_dot]

I didn't mention it in the video but it's also interesting how easy it was for TLOU to jump to a TV show with relatively little fuss (compared to the many other less successful game-to-movie adaptations).

[@rancidavocado2166]

I think interactive movie games have a place since you are directly put into the protagonists shoes but they should remain a genre and not the norm

[@dzansuljanovic7741]

My problem with modern games everyone praises for their stories and cinematic-ness is that in a lot of cases the "story" is just the cutscene inbetween the gameplay. In Bioshock, Ocarina of Time, Gris those stories being told in a video game form is the point, those stories have to be experienced, played, they cannot be movies or books or graphic novels or mini series because their storytelling is so deeply tied to gameplay. Meanwhile the last of us is a collection of cutscenes interrupted with gameplay for me, my mom had the same level of connection to Joel in the miniseries as i did in the game, nothing was lost making this game a miniseries

[@SaberRexZealot]

That’s a bit uncharitable. The Last of Us has a lot of great environment storytelling moments, like the sewer and mall sections, not to mention how tense the gameplay can actually be, reinforcing the danger of the world.

[@nicolasmccarter5395]

Bro these videos are so fire keep up the great work! 👍

[@reevesT94]

I've always had this exact kind of thinking, it's a real conundrum of sorts. I'm a contrarian, so I've always hated the over-glowing praise TLoU has always gotten, despite liking the games myself. And I'm not against cinematic games either- TLoU being perhaps the *best* cinematic game series (obviously Uncharted too) out there. But I've always hated how much attention these games have gotten because of how 'simple' they are to love (and not in a bad way, but as a *game*). Despite this, I don't disagree with liking/loving TLoU, or cinematic games; they're genuinely still very good games. [This sounds funny and contradictory but like compare TLoU to Dragon's Age or Elden Ring- all games have complexity in its systems: gameplay, graphics, story, sound design - TLoU chooses to have its main noticeable complexities hidden behind its cinematic storytelling where as Elden Ring's systems are all vague as f**k.]

[@jmiquelmb]

I'll honestly maintain that Elden Ring is deeper thematically than TLoU. And I don't mean it's more difficult to understand or there's more stuff happening. I literally mean that there's more depth in themes, philosophy and characters in Elden Ring once you understand the story.

[@reevesT94]

@@jmiquelmb And you're not wrong, Elden Ring is a lake compared to the pond that is TLoU. But reading into technicalities, it's not fair because both games try for very different things.

[@simplysmiley4670]

Problem is that the cinematic storytelling misses entirely if you're not into movies. You don't get any choice and the game bashes you over the head that what you're doing is bad over and over. None of the "you should feel bad" scenes hit in any significant way when it wasn't your choice at all, unless the choice of uninstalling the game counts.

[@i_am_a_dot]

I wonder how well-regarded TLOU would be if it had no story whatsoever (or a very minimal one) but the exact same gameplay. Because I do think the core gameplay is really solid and a lot of fun. But yeah, I do agree that a lot of the praise seems sort of surface level, often referring to the story and all that while ignoring the really solid gameplay that holds up the whole thing. I first played TLOU years after it had originally came out. A lot of the story stuff had been spoiled for me but I legit didn't know it had stealth mechanics until I played it. I know that's anecdotal but I think it kind of goes to your point about the story overshadowing everything else.

[@Volvagia1927]

I would have maybe lowered the megaphone instead of the script, because that's more the control the player is given than the script.

[@chengong388]

WTF? They're not asking what you would do, you play as Joel, the question is what would Joel do, and they get to answer it, you don't get a choice because they're the writers of Joel the fictional character.

[@blakehansen5434]

This entire video I thought you were going to get to a thesis or some sort of "point." It felt like a bunch of rambling. Okay... and...? What is your point? It's a story game, of course you can't get in a car and drive to California. It's a video game... with a story. What are you trying to address here? You're all over the place man...

[@realityveil6151]

It is the weakest possible sauce that you kept blurring things. Unwatchable.

[@stargirl2094]

It's cause of youtube guidelines lol

[@realityveil6151]

@@stargirl2094 Doesn't make it watchable.

[@rockworldroblox8136]

@@realityveil6151what are you on about this person worked hard on this video and deserves to make money from it. So he’s keeping with guidelines. Also you saying unwatchable is an objective statement which is not because I in fact could watch this video. Dawg it’s ok to not like something like don’t act like your god and can define what’s good or bad

[@realityveil6151]

@@rockworldroblox8136 No, it's not objective, don't put words in my mouth. It's a subjective opinion. You have different perspective than I do and that's great. I have to give him the feedback so he can give youitube the feedback about the guidelines. Why do zoomers find negative opinion so scary? Grow up.

[@merchantarthurn]

@@realityveil6151 "Grow up" but apparently couldn't read what it said in the first few seconds and whinged in the comments about it like a baby AND is naive enough to think youtube would give a toss about his opinion when significantly larger youtubers than him have had problems with this for years. They care about their the delicate sensibilities of advertisers, not the actual quality of the viewing experience. If you can't hack that people are still trying to make a living despite that, complain to youtube yourself.

[@VanHalenfreak9]

11:16 “The Last of Ust”