Sometimes, by not giving the player a choice, the emotional impact is greater and therefore serves the truth of the story, leading to a more powerful experience. 

​

One of the most controversial comments players make is that when Dina asks Ellie to stay on the farm in the third act of the game, players often believe they should have been given a choice. 

​

This would be wrong for many reasons. 

​

1) Naughty Dog's franchise, The Last of Us is built on characters and conflict. To give players a new "mechanical" choice to change the story breaks the emotional core of the story.  The player is not playing as "themselves", but as Ellie, which means sometimes, players won't agree with everything Ellie does. 

​

This is good. This creates emotional responses to the choices they make. The feelings we feel are FOR characters, not necessarily AS them. This is what makes the story something that is TOLD, rather than something that is personally crafted by the player themselves. To break this is both psychologically jarring and results in cognitive dissonance, especially in where the emotion is directed.
 

​

2) It breaks the truth of the game and the story it tries to tell. If there was a choice, the appearance of a mechanic to "press a button and choose" defies all the game's presented mechanics and systems. Because this is the final act, to present a choice to the player in this way is to break the game's presented design.  Players would ask, "where were these choices earlier when I disagreed with Ellie/Abby beforehand?!". 

​

In regards to the story, this especially applies to Ellie. We see her defy great odds for those she loves. However, at this point in her character, players become aware that this motivation is overcome by her desire for revenge for Joel, a devastating narrative beat to witness. To let players avoid this and do what is more emotionally safe (aka, to make Ellie stay with Dina), is to disregard Ellie's character. Her truth is to lose everything in this pursuit because that is her character arc, and that is the story Naughty Dog is trying to tell. 

​

To give players an option to control Ellie's decisions would be to go against Ellie's character, the story, the mechanics, and the arc within the broad picture of the Last of Us: Part 2.




Ultimately, this is one of the most powerful moments in the game. Players see a beloved character make the decision to leave their family and beautiful home for revenge, a journey that is dangerous and may not prove successful. In the end, it is unclear whether it is successful, but it no longer matters as Ellie loses everything, facing her worst fear: being alone. 

The Last of Us: Part 2 has several powerful narrative beats. I chose this one because I feel the criticism of "there should have been a choice" is just not the truth. It's not Ellie. It's not the story. In my studies of game design, I tend to hear the phrase, "let players choose and feel agency" in almost any possible way. 

But in the case of the Last Of Us: Part 2, we see this tradition challenged in favor of a powerful experience that leaves us emotionally charged. This is more powerful in telling stories with this kind of design and emotional impact. Even if a choice was presented, there is no guarantee it would satisfy or be better than the story already presented. (Not to mention the increased development time for creating two equally satisfying and believable outcomes.)

 

While removing choice isn't applicable to every game (especially since the mechanic is not presented in the first Last Of Us game), it holds true with telling the player a story that matters. 

​

And if that story is telling us that revenge, hate, anger, and sacrificing loved ones and their happiness for it will lead to a great loss and deep unhappiness, then perhaps we should stop criticizing and start listening.

​

​