Would The Last of Us as a series have been received better if it had released in reverse?

Submitted by BigMacDaddy_YT t3_11ebyy7 in gaming

Basically, while I think that TLOU2 is a good game, I have always wondered whether it would have possibly been received better as a franchise had Part 2 been released first (and that it would be more open ended on the direction it could go). So, our first interaction with Ellie is in Jackson, with her daily tasks and relationships between Dina and friends. We can see there's tension between her and Joel and we have some flashbacks about their time together.

Obv we then get to the scene of Abby where she kills Joel, and we learn how everyone is connected as the story marches on. We then get the whole journey of revenge and how that plays out and the game ends on that somber note. Fast forward a bit and a prequel releases where Joel has to take a young girl across the US because she might be a cure to the infection. I think Joel in this scenario may have been a lot like Arthur Morgan, and I wonder if people would have liked both games more if it had been released this way.

What are your thoughts?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PercySledge t1_jad3lj2 wrote

It’s one of the most critically acclaimed, adored and best recieved games of all time so I have no idea how it would have improved upon that if they did any of this? 🤷‍♂️

8

BigMacDaddy_YT OP t1_jad3ug0 wrote

was just chewing on the idea of how both Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2 are so beloved and how The Last of Us 1 and 2 at times have been polarising for some. Wondered if the formula may have worked had they approached it like this

−7

Equisapien004 t1_jadde8n wrote

TLOU2 builds on the first one in every way. It's only "polarizing" to weird nerds online who completely misunderstood the point of the first game. The games don't need to change, those people do.

−1

JoelsCaddy t1_jad2wzt wrote

Wouldnt have been as good if it was released in reverse

6

BigMacDaddy_YT OP t1_jad3irf wrote

first off, great name :D

second, I think if you could tweak the writing a little bit in Part 2 had it had released first, it could have made a difference. We would not nearly be as well acquainted with Joel so his death would not be as impactful as it is now. With that, you would probably get more people to feel "grey" about Ellie and Abby. I don't know. In its current state, it kind of just felt like Part 2 tried to keep red flagging the fact that "revenge is bad Ellie, stop trying to take revenge" even though she was the protagonist and we had walked with her since the first game.

−2

ChicknSoop t1_jad4fzu wrote

You mean the second game? No.

My problem with the second game is that the stakes went from how it could affect the world as a whole, along with how personal trauma and experiences could affect your choices, relationships, and outlook on the world.

The second game took all of that, and instead of building on it, just threw it away for an entirely different theme, and makes the ending of the first feel flat with no satisfying resolution.

3

BigMacDaddy_YT OP t1_jad5cg5 wrote

This is one of the problems I also had with the second game. It kind of felt to me like the sacrifices of Tess, Bill, Henry and Sam and others were pretty much an afterthought. And that now it just became very personal, which felt off key given the first game highlighting how when the one moment came where Joel had to make a utilitarian decision, he did not

0

sophisticaden_ t1_jad48yz wrote

It would have killed a lot of the emotional weight and momentum. 2 is phenomenal as a thematic conclusion for the series and it mostly works because it builds off of and resolves 1.

2

BigMacDaddy_YT OP t1_jad5ume wrote

I'm gonna be honest, I enjoyed 2's story but I did not feel a lot of emotional weight and/or momentum on my playthrough. I felt during 1 I had such an epic journey where it all came down to a climax and Joel made a huge impactful decision, while in 2 when I was on Ellie's journey, all I kept thinking was "turn back, turn back, turn back"

−2

Nick--115 t1_jad58ib wrote

That would be interesting. If the second game was the og release and the first was just a prequel.

1

BigMacDaddy_YT OP t1_jad5l24 wrote

I feel like it would open more avenues, in a way. Since Joel would be the focus of the "prequel", you could have more games exploring possibly further back, like a Tommy prequel or one between where him and Tommy had to survive which was described as nightmarish

2

Kurotan t1_jadd7ms wrote

Didn't play the second. Don't want Joel to die and don't want to play as Abby. First game ended just fine to me and that's how it's staying in my mind. To me, no need to change the order of one game. So it would make no difference.

1