A 'Better Ending' For The Last of Us 2 Wouldn't Have Worked
The Last of Us Part 2 is one of those very divisive games that people often either end up loving or putting back on the shelf, and that's most likely due to two major events that happen within the storyline and to one single design choice made by Naughty Dog. When the game first came out there had been several leaks and rumors already about the possibility that Joel, the character players learned to love and empathize with the most during the first game, could end up being killed. To the dismay of many fans, this proved to be the case.
The death of Joel, as brutal and inhumane as it was, is the inciting incident for The Last of Us Part 2's narrative, and it happens suddenly after less than a single hour into the game. Joel dying sets the mood for the entire game, and numerous players felt terrible about his demise. With Ellie forced to look while a strange woman, Abby, kills her father figure with a golf club is pretty much the same position players found themselves in, having to witness all that and being powerless about it, too. For this very reason, when players get to play as Ellie they feel things that may probably align with the way Ellie is feeling in the story, and as such, playing as her becomes second nature rather quickly.
The first of the two major events shaping the game and dividing fans about The Last of Us Part 2 is, of course, Joel's death. Despite him being possessive and emotionally stuck, Joel was the character that gamers played as the most throughout the story of The Last of Us Part 1. His departure was painful, and it meant that players felt that it was indeed Ellie's right to exact revenge from Abby for what she did. With this in mind, the way the game canonically ends is not one that many players were happy with simply because Ellie has a negative character arc that makes her story end on a lower note than when it started. And it started pretty low, with Joel's death. The ending is the second of the major events that divided players on if they enjoyed The Last of Us Part 2 in the first place.
However, it was not the players' story to tell, and that became apparent when the phenomenon of review bombing hit The Last of Us Part 2 after its release. Many were displeased by the story from beginning to end, but above all most people disliked having to play for half of the game's length as an unfamiliar character that they grew to hate: Abby, Joel's killer. This design choice was a bold one from Naughty Dog because it knew that players would feel this way, but it was its intention to challenge the perspective, the moral values, and the perceived justice of those playing the game.
The Last of Us Part 2 couldn't have a better ending than the one it actually had, and that's because any different ending wouldn't have brought Joel back from the dead. Furthermore, a different, more positive ending for Ellie would have meant she managed to not let Dina and their baby go, to not lose Jesse to a shot in the face, to not lose her fingers, and ultimately herself, all in the process of trying to kill Abby off. Even if all this happened, and even if Ellie did kill Abby in the end, instead of letting her go with Lev on her mission to Catalina Island, would have that been good storytelling?
Ellie lost everything because the stakes were high and because she pushed way over her own limitations, thus a different ending would have been one from an ideal world where she was immune to consequences and the causality of events. That ending would have felt equally bad, but rather than it being a great ending with a bad arc, it would have been a bad ending with a positive arc. That's not what Naughty Dog tried to achieve, and Abby's story did matter, and it did humanize her character. To some, it was too little and too late to actually matter, though.
An alternate ending to The Last of Us Part 2 would have needed a similarly strong sense of closure for it to feel good enough, which instead the canonical ending provides through the scene with Ellie trying to play the guitar again. She is reconnecting herself to Joel, who is now gone, and to whom she was cold growing up. She has to learn to play from scratch because now she is missing two fingers that would otherwise help her, but the sounds she makes are out of tune. Ellie needs to find herself again, and she acknowledges she lost her path in ways Joel wouldn't have been proud of.
Is it necessary for the ending to see the demise of Abby and potentially even Lev? In a scenario where the only change is the ending, rather than bits of the story, Abby's death would be the only significant difference. That, or Ellie's own end. In the case that Abby was to be killed by Ellie, how would that change the story?
Let's talk about why Abby didn't die, first. When Ellie forced her rival into a fight, regardless of the fact that they were both weak, in distress, and physically tired, she was about to prevail on Abby and kill her despite also losing two fingers in the process. In the end, Ellie thinks of Joel and she starts crying, realizing she doesn't have it in her to kill Abby. The former sits in the water, alone, pondering about her life choices and where they led her. The latter walks away with the one person she cares about and pursues her goal.
Would Ellie killing Abby and return victorious to an empty home be a good ending? That would have only cemented the fact that she was all about revenge, perpetuating violence over and over because of her purpose, and not changing for the better. Yes, she could have avenged Joel's death, but that wouldn't have changed all that she had lost up to that point. Would Ellie try and mend her relationship with Dina, at that point? Ends are often new beginnings and The Last of Us Part 2's finale also preludes to Ellie's new journey, one where she is not blinded by violence to the point she renounces a tranquil life with her loved ones.
The Last of Us 2 is available now on PS4.
Post a Comment