Violence, Conflict, and How The Last of Us Part II Could Have Gone Further
Group conflict remains a fascinating, but largely unexplored facet of the story
I am one of the people who loved the sequel to The Last of Us. While I am not in the 10/10 camp, I did have a thoroughly enjoyable experience with a game that I feel pushed video game storytelling in some exciting new directions. The gameplay is both deep and accessible, the visuals are spectacular, and the acting is some of the best I have seen in a video game. However, there are some ways I think it could have gone so much further. People have many gripes with the game, ranging from the pacing of the story to the character writing to its overall length. My main point of contention, however, is with the overall theme.
The Last of Us Part II is very much a game about the cycle of revenge and the fact that the people you are in conflict with are still humans. This cycle is mostly explored with the feud between Abby and Ellie. Most notably, it’s hammered home during the portion of the game where you see things from the “other side” while playing as Abby. However, the themes of revenge and conflict also permeate other parts of the game. In particular, it is present in the war between the Washington Liberation Front (WLF) and the Seraphites (often referred to as Scars). It is this aspect of the story that I think the game could have expanded upon and where it undercuts the overall message.
As someone currently researching conflict as part of my PhD, it struck me how much the feud between the WLF and Seraphites reflected real-world conflict. There is the use of pejorative labels, sometimes based on physical features (the Seraphites are called Scars and the WLF are called wolves); disputes over territory; the Othering of the opposing group based on beliefs and practices (the WLF think the Seraphites are a barbaric cult while the Seraphites see the WLF as sinners needing to be cleansed); the twisting of a prophet’s original teachings to justify killings (the Seraphite elders create rituals for “cleansing the sin” of captured WLFs by disemboweling them); bystanders being forced to choose a side if they want to survive (as shown in several notes found throughout the game); charismatic leaders who take advantage of the war for personal gain (Isaac and the elders); and so much more. One of the most significant connections to real-world conflict, and what ties it to the central theme of the game, is how the violence is partly motivated and justified by a feedback loop of revenge.
Based on notes you find throughout the game, it is clear that the Seraphites and Washington Liberation Front once had a truce before engaging in their current conflict. As is usually the case, however, this truce only prevented direct violence, while the underlying tensions continued to ferment under the surface. This fragile ceasefire was easily broken by a single incident. A note you find written from the Seraphite perspective claims that the WLF ambushed one of their groups. The orders to other Seraphites are to go into WLF territory and kill anyone you see immediately. The loop of retaliation stemming from this seems to be what led to the violent conflict we see in the game, a conflict which peaks with the attempted annihilation of the Seraphites by the WLF. Importantly, it is an example of how the cycle of revenge and its consequences can occur for not just individuals, but groups of people as well.
While I understand why the developers focused on the personal revenge story and its effects, I think there are a number of ways they could have enhanced this theme in terms of the Seraphites and WLF. First of all, though, the reason I believe this is valuable at all is because of how closely it is tied to reality. We rarely hear stories about someone traveling across the state just to take revenge, and if we do it is going to be an anomaly. On the other hand, group conflict justified by vengeance is a part of everyday life for much of the world. Looking at world news one sees stories about Israel and Palestine; the civil war in Syria; and the seemingly endless ethnic tensions in parts of Africa. Going beyond contemporary issues, whole eras of history are defined by the start and end of group conflicts. Conflict is also relevant beyond the inter- and intra-nation wars listed so far. Non-violent group conflict is always a part of everyday life, whether it be disgust towards someone on the other side of the political spectrum or internalized fear towards people of different ethnicity. For this reason, I actually think violence and revenge at the group level are more relevant than the personal revenge story explored in The Last of Us Part II. For me, a game with Naughty Dog’s storytelling prowess that centered on these more realistic revenge and conflict narratives would be very powerful indeed.
Now, there are some ways Naughty Dog could have taken this exploration of conflict further. I found it particularly jarring to see how easily the player is made to kill regular NPC’s, and then how emotionally taxing it suddenly is for Ellie to take revenge on Abby and her friends. Sure, the player is given the choice of sneaking past enemies throughout most encounters. Sure, the enemies shout their friends’ names when they find their bodies. Sure, Ellie’s dialogue and body language convey disgust in what she is doing (at least initially). Nevertheless, these enemies are treated like they are in most games, as dehumanized obstacles to be eliminated or avoided. For me, this particularly stands out during Abby’s playthrough.
When Abby meets and befriends two Seraphites, Yara and Lev, you gain some knowledge and empathy into their way of life. However, these two are deserters, and so the depiction of the Seraphites as a group remains an overall negative one. You continue to kill Seraphites without questioning it. The same is true for the WLF. When Abby encounters Isaac and his squad of soldiers on The Island, they seem content with shooting Lev, a young child and someone who saved Abby’s life, with no remorse. When Yara kills Isaac and Abby is branded as a traitor, there does not seem to be a single WLF soldier who questions the apparent shoot on sight order for Abby. Abby herself cuts down her former allies with seemingly no qualms, despite the fact that the past 10 hours focused on creating empathy for the members of the WLF. The Washington Liberation Front are once again dehumanized as mere obstacles for the player. It is as if Abby, her friends, and the handful of WLF and Seraphites who leave behind collectible notes are the only members of this conflict worthy of being seen as humans.
Of course, this does not mean killing all those enemies was unjustified. The Seraphites oppressive practices would make anyone’s skin crawl, as would the slaughter and torture that are undertaken by the WLF. Both groups also kill trespassers on sight, so it’s not as if Ellie and Abby are going out of their way to murder these people for nothing. After all, they are still living in a post-apocalyptic world where killing is sometimes necessary to survive.
However, the person-to-person violence looked down upon by the main plot is also very much justified. Joel killed Abby’s father and a large portion of her Firefly friends, so it makes sense she would want justice. Abby tortured and killed Ellie’s father figure in front of her, so revenge is valid here too. Even Abby’s revenge on Ellie for killing the only people left in the world she actually cared about could be justified.
But that’s the message of the game, that killing only begets more killing, that it takes a personal toll on the revenger and their friends/family, and that the cycle can only be stopped by letting go of this desire for death. We see the negative consequences of continuing this cycle at the group level as the WLF and Seraphites tear each other apart on The Island. However, the participation of Ellie and Abby in this violent cycle at the group level seems to be mostly ignored by the game.
For me, this doesn’t ruin the game, but it undercuts the overall message and represents a missed opportunity. I find it especially surprising since Abby’s father (as well as the other Fireflies) are fairly incidental NPCs in the first game! The fact that this game has a plot based on the consequences of indiscriminately killing NPCs and yet does not make you think about how you are once again indiscriminately killing NPCs is kind of ironic when you think about it.
To Naughty Dog’s credit, they do attempt to humanize the Seraphites and WLF through collectible notes or their allies shouting their names, as mentioned earlier. Even if Ellie and Abby’s participation in the group conflict is not thoroughly explored, you do still see the negative consequences of the Seraphite-WLF war and the type of thinking on both sides that fuels it. It also would have had to have been a pretty severe departure of typical third-person shooter game design to make the player genuinely see each and every enemy they face as human. That being said, I still think more could have been done to better integrate the theme of revenge and conflict between groups into the gameplay and story.
In the end, I don’t blame the developers for the approach they took. The Last of Us Part II still offers a masterful exploration of cycles of revenge, violence, and conflict. After all, I would never have been inspired to write this article if the game did not make such a genuine attempt at dealing with these issues.
On a larger scale, though, what I am hoping for is that The Last of Us II inspires future developers to explore group conflict and all its ambiguities even further. A game with a Naughty Dog approach to storytelling that also imbues these themes into gameplay could make an even great impact that we’ve seen with The Last of Us.
