Ready Or Not and the Myth of Ecoterrorism

It's 8:30 in the morning. An armed group of eco-terrorists from a movement called the United Planet Front have boarded an oil rig off the coast of California and taken its workers hostage with the intention of shutting down the operation. 18 months prior members of the same movement were involved in a home invasion where an oil industry lobbyist and his family were also taken hostage, leading to a gunfight between the police and the suspects. Now after failed negotiations, the terrorists livestream the hanging of several workers as a message, and a squad of SWAT officers are sent to the oil rig to take the gunmen down, rescue the hostages and bring order to chaos. 

This is the narrative setup for a mission in the game Ready Or Not (2021) by VOID Interactive called "Leviathan", arguably the big centerpiece of its sea-themed DLC Dark Waters. As a setting the oil rig is an interesting deviation from the game's usual urban environments of the fictional city of Los Sueños, a sort of grim dark take on modern Los Angeles. The rig's catwalks and industrial interiors are almost labyrinthian in nature, and the whole time as you try to carefully navigate them, you are whipped by howling storm winds and surrounded by massive waves crashing into the foundations holding the structure up.

In isolation Leviathan is an engaging and memorable gameplay experience thanks to its rather unique setting. There is a real sense of danger to the environment itself, even if you cannot actually fall off the rig, but the illusion is enough. However, the excellence of the mission's level design is at least to me marred by its exaggerated depiction of gun-toting eco-terrorists, which I find unfortunately bothersome. 

But for those who are unfamiliar with the game in question, let me first give you a brief overview: Ready Or Not is a tactical and "hardcore" first-person shooter in which you complete missions as a squad of SWAT officers, either in co-op with four other players or in singleplayer leading AI controlled teammates. In one mission you might be interrupting a gas station robbery gone wrong and then in another stopping an active shooter threat at a night club. While every situation can easily turn into a series of lethal and dangerous gunfights, they can also be cleared without killing a single suspect, if approached smartly. 

On a gameplay level I tend to have a pretty good time with Ready Or Not, as despite my fairly strong anti-gun and anti-war beliefs I have always enjoyed all kinds of tactical shooters and military simulators for their intense gunplay. Because as much as I hate to admit it, in games it is often simply fun to shoot guns, especially when they sound good like they do in Ready Or Not. I also tend to be drawn to the slower pace of tactical games compared to the constant fast high-octane action of something like Call of Duty, as my reaction speeds and aiming just aren't the best. But with this game I also specifically enjoy the challenge of trying to complete the missions with as few kills as possible. There is simply something incredibly satisfying about getting a perfect score by non-lethally clearing a house full of armed men that could shoot you dead in seconds if you are not careful. It's a high risk playstyle that rewards thinking and a careful approach above pure mechanical skill. 

And yet on a narrative level there are certain aspects of the game's story that I chafe against, and one of them is how the game touches on environmental activism in two of its DLC missions, Lawmaker and the previously mentioned Leviathan. 

The first mission called Lawmaker was released as part of the game's first DLC Home Invasion. In it a rich politician's large mansion is raided by members of UPF, a fictional movement that according to the lore operated as your typical youth activist group until it was only very recently radicalized and turned violent by an extremist called Tobias Gibson. Their target is an oil industry lobbyist named Sven Anderson-Lincoln, and the activists vandalize his mansion by destroying furniture, throwing paint and spraying their logos on the walls. Sven's family and servants are also present and are either in hiding or taken hostage by the masked intruders armed with assault rifles and submachine guns. 

Spray-painted UPF logos are all around the vandalized mansion.  It has a fairly clear resemblance to the real life Extinction Rebellion’s logo with an X inside of a circle, but no doubt that's a coincidence.

As the excellent critique about Ready Or Not by Face Full Of Eyes points out, the game's atmosphere and style is that of "gritty realism" that often veers into rather tasteless, exaggerated shock horror for the sake of darkness, or "darksploitation" as he calls it: A predatory porn mogul has a massive collage of pictures in his basement forming a fractured image of his underage daughter with "DADDY'S GOOD LITTLE PRINCESS" painted next to it in massive letters, drug dens are filled with horror imagery in graffiti and creepy dolls scattered around, and many suspects wear weird BDSM-style masks more fit for slasher movie monsters than actual criminals. It is a sort of hyperrealist take on the darkest parts of the modern world with little to no subtlety, where everything is taken to the extreme. 

In contrast, the initial depiction of the UPF members in the mission Lawmaker seems perhaps a bit more "grounded" or even tame at first glance: Although they wield guns, excluding the leader Gibson and his right-hand man Mark Cross, the other members mostly seem like young radicals way over their heads that begin firing back at the SWAT officers out of fear and self-preservation rather than malice. Based on the fact that there is no sign of them killing or hurting anyone in the mansion, it gives the impression that their goal was mainly intimidation and making a statement by vandalizing the luxurious estate with paint and destruction of property. Although, there is a rare chance in the mission for a suspect to take a civilian hostage and threaten to kill them, which is obviously heinous.  

Yet when the movement appears again in Leviathan, the depiction of UPF becomes completely detached from any reality and stretches the limits of believability to a breaking point. The armed eco-terrorists who went out of their way to avoid killing the rich oil lobbyist are now wantonly hanging random oil rig workers as a message and live streaming it, all the while their leader calls 911 to spout nonsense from a frankly ridiculous manifesto that begins with some believable sounding arguments like "the endless campaign of consumption and disruption of the planet and its ecosystem must be stopped" to drivel such as "uncomfortable steps are now needed to reduce the human population" and "the parasite of the collective mind will be purged". Not only does the rhetoric suddenly sound more fit for a supervillain in a comic book story or a Mission: Impossible film than anything a real environmental activist would say, but a lot of it is also oddly unrelated to the terrorists' current goals in the mission. They are shutting down a single oil rig, not committing a massacre. If reducing the human population was their goal, at least have the guts to make them go full supervillain by breaking into some sort of biolab to steal a virus or contaminating a water reserve to poison a city. What the whole speech sounds like to me is a writer too lazy to do research into actual talking points from real activists and instead relying on fictional and cartoony depictions of villains like the film version of Thanos in Marvel’s Infinity War or Samuel L. Jackson's character in Kingsmen: The Secret Service. Both have stated goals of saving the world but attempt to do so by essentially committing mass murder on a global (or even galactic) scale, but neither are anywhere near realistic depictions of "ecoterrorists." The difference between those examples and Ready Or Not is that the films are over-the-top blockbuster action movies based on comic books, while the game has the surface level aesthetic of "realism." 

"Profit Today, Judgement Tomorrow" the banner says, while corpses of oil rig workers hang above the cold and dark waters. 

It's difficult to get a picture of the suspects unless they are arrested, since they usually shoot at you on sight.

At this point you might be asking "so what? It's a game, it's fiction. It's supposed to be harmless fun, not a documentary. If all the other real life problems depicted in Ready Or Not are exaggerated, what unique harm is there to take this concept to a more extreme direction?" 

What it comes down to is that even if their portrayal in-game might have their own issues, the other crimes and topics the game tackles such as human trafficking, CP, political corruption, drug cartels and right-wing terrorism are very real and serious problems that do cause harm to countless people worldwide, but violent anti-human eco-terrorism that targets people is not a real phenomenon and feels out of place among the others. Historically there are almost no cases I could find of this sort of violence used by environmentalists, and a research paper published in 2024 by Cambridge University supports this, making the case that "environmentalists rarely, if ever, use lethal violence." Regardless of that fact, environmental activists of all kinds are often talked about as eco-terrorists or dangerous criminals by right-leaning influencers, politicians and even the current U.S. administration in a deliberate attempt to vilify and discredit them. For example, in 2022 there was a debate within the French government about the term when its Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin used it to describe demonstrators protesting the building of a water basin. In response, a former Green presidential candidate Noël Mamère wrote an op-ed where he stated that Darmanin's use of the term bordered "on political obscenity" and came across as "a clear declaration of war against environmentalists." He went on to write: 

    "For those who are interested in the history of environmental movements, which does not seem to be the case for Mr. Darmanin, "eco-terrorism" was invented within conservative circles. The expression, as stigmatizing as it is revolting for the confusion to which it gives rise, comes from lobbyists that are victims of environmental activists who call themselves "ecowarriors," mainly in English-speaking countries, and who resort to actions that do not exclude environmental sabotage by attacking material property."

The key words being used in this quote are "material property." The real life movements that the game's United Planet Front is clearly inspired by are groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Extinction Rebellion (XR), even down to blatantly mimicking the latter’s logo but with a Z instead of an X. ELF is the more extreme of these two as it has committed acts of what might be called "monkeywrenching" or "ecotage", meaning the destruction of property in order to hinder or stop operations deemed harmful for the environment or people. And while there are disagreements even within environmentalist circles about their use of these tactics, and I am not personally condoning them, I think it is important to know that their line is always drawn at hurting living things. Meanwhile XR is a completely non-violent movement that uses civil disobedience to raise awareness and put pressure on people in power, often by using their own bodies to block traffic or operations, purposefully getting arrested en masse as a tactic. When they cause disruption, it is targeted and calculated, not aimed at hurting ordinary people but businesses and governments with specific goals and demands in mind instead of "purging the parasite of the collective mind" or whatever the Hell the UPF spokesperson was babbling about in the game. When four Greenpeace activists boarded a Shell oil rig back in 2023, they did so without weapons, threats or violence, and eventually left peacefully without being arrested. Several previous protests aboard oil rigs in the past have followed similar patterns, and all were completely non-violent. Yet all of these groups and even less extreme ones have been labeled by some as "threats to society." And you might even disagree with their methods, but there is a big difference between them and the faceless, gun-wielding terrorists of UPF who attack people, invade private homes or livestream hangings. 

Source: Greenpeace

What frustrates me both as a player and as a hobbyist game designer is that the concept of a mission involving activists and a protest as a problem to solve isn't inherently a bad idea and could, in another game, even lead to interesting decision making. For example in a more dialogue focused game you could be asked to find a deal to end a tense protest by negotiating with the activists, sort of similar to Disco Elysium's storyline about a union strike. And if the game was well written with believable, rounded characters that have clear motivations and goals rather than unquestionably villainous caricatures, it could provoke actually thoughtful dialogue about activism and acceptable ways of protesting. Using force to end the protest might even be an option in the game, but at least you would then as the player have to be the one to make that choice and live with it.  

But Ready Or Not is not that game. Fun or not, the gun-centric nature of its FPS gameplay does not have enough verbs in its toolset to support this sort of storyline or interaction. Your only options to deal with people in the game are either to yell at them to surrender or subduing them with force, either lethal or "less lethal" like rubber bullets and gas. (Which, make no mistake, can still kill.) So in turn, all suspects in the game need to pose a possible threat to the player, since otherwise there is no real challenge or decision making to be had within the limitations of its first-person shooter language. This is why the UPF members have to be armed and dangerous, and there is no room for negotiation. As you are helpfully informed at the beginning of the mission, that part has happened and failed off screen, and now it is up to you as the brave SWAT officer to go and clean the mess up by taking down those pesky "UPF assholes", as the  briefing calls them. 

Press F to yell at suspects.

At this point I do want to be clear that my aim is not to make accusations about the political beliefs or intentions of the developers at VOID. Instead I want to emphasize that whenever an artist tackles complex and sensitive topics such as these, they have a responsibility to do their due research and avoid potentially harmful depictions, or recognize when something is best left alone. Because regardless of how sympathetic or not the developers at VOID are to environmental activism, the reality is that the type of game they have made and the necessities of its gameplay are clearly unsuited to tackle the topic in a nuanced way. Even if the depiction of the UPF in the game was not meant to be purposefully hateful but simply thoughtless, relying on old media tropes about villains with understandable motivations but misguided methods, the game also lacks any positive examples of activism which inherently skews the portrayal of the whole issue to be one-sided and negative. 

And while we can hope that most players would be able to see the line between fiction and reality in this case, the unfortunate truth is that whether intentionally or not, the game is reinforcing the myth repeated by right-wing and even some centrist politicians and billionaires that people taking direct action and fighting for the planet through protest are "dangerous", "unhinged" or even “terrorists.” To the people who profit most from the destruction of our planet, any sort of disruptive action or disobedience against capital or governments is immoral and criminal. Even in my home country of Finland, politicians on the right have made attempts to label the local arm of Extinction Rebellion, Elokapina, as a criminal organization that should be banned. This was after a series of peaceful protests where the movement blocked traffic by sitting on a road in the centre of Helsinki for a few hours. Because to unfortunately many people, the only right way to protest is to do it in a way that does not inconvenience or bother anyone. 

But in fact it is that exact sort of rhetoric that is either naive, or worse, purposefully harmful and dangerous. Just this year we have had another record hot summer as the global temperature is rising with heat waves and unprecedented amount of forest fires across Europe, drying lakes and melting ice causing massive floods wiping entire towns in Nepal and Tibet in the recent weeks. Climate change is a real, pressing threat, and these cases of freak weather and natural disasters will only become more common if the current status quo remains. I might not have a solution to stop it all, but I know that inaction is not the answer and that the last thing we need right at a time like this is to further vilify people actually trying to do something about it. 

Dream Game: White Death

I've mentioned before on this blog how even when I was a preteen, I used to spend hours imagining different kinds of interesting ideas for videogames I would one day like to see become reality. After all, that is what ultimately inspired me to make this blog and start this Dream Game series of posts. 

There is one specific concept that I came up with as a young Finnish boy probably over ten years ago that has stuck with me, as I even invented a name for it that soon evolved into my PlayStation username (which hasn't changed to this day). The name of that game, Frozen Assault. 

Essentially my little kid brain, after playing countless first-person shooters like Medal of Honor, Call of Duty and Battlefield, grew frustrated that while there were hundreds of titles focused on the European campaign of World War II and more modern conflicts in the Middle East, not a single major title ever highlighted the Winter War that the Soviet Union and Finland fought between 1939 - 1940. In hindsight, it's easier to see why. While the conflict left a major mark in my country's history, along with the later Continuation War of 1941 - 1944, it is relatively easy to ignore among the more major wars between larger powers that occurred in those years. (Not to mention that despite the later Cold War animosity against the Soviets and the fact that they were the obvious aggressors in the Winter War, they were ultimately on the Allies' side against the Axis powers. And as Finland did later ally with Germany against them for the Continuation War, although mostly out of necessity, it's understandable why that could be problematic for most Western game studios trying to depict the conflict fairly. It's certainly a detail that even most of us Finns are ashamed to talk about in retrospect.) 

Finnish soldiers in the Winter War. Source: SA-Kuva

But really what interested me was not only the specific historical setting being underused, but the concept of fighting a war in the middle of a harsh winter that was at times as much of a threat as the enemy. Part of the reason the Winter War has had such a legacy, in addition to the currently topical story of a much smaller country holding off a major superpower, was the actual weather conditions the war was fought in. The cold of that specific winter fell down to -43 Celsius (-45 °F) at the worst, which is a lot colder than most people will ever experience. Hell, the coldest temperatures I remember ever being in are probably "only" around -30 degrees, and even that feels like death to be in just for a few minutes. 

In addition to freezing temperatures, winter introduces a whole set of other interesting environmental variables, most obviously snow and ice. Thick snow is tough to move through and running on ice can easily result in a fatal slip, making traversal on a battlefield a more complicated matter. And then there's cold water that can kill a man in moments if they fall through a frozen lake. Heavy snowfall reduces visibility and muffles sound, which can play an important part in staying undetected from enemies. It's also easy to get lost in a snowy forest, when everything is covered in a layer of white and falling snow covers old tracks. 

All of this made me wonder, what if there was a multiplayer shooter that truly used dynamic weather in a winter environment to create a unique, challenging and atmospheric combat experience that is about more than just shooting guns? 

Introducing, White Death, an asymmetrical multiplayer FPS where the harsh winter can be either your best ally or your worst nightmare. 

Source: Finnish Defence Forces

(Note: This post is not meant to be propaganda for any military force, and while unfortunately some alt-right clowns in Finland like to use our history and its imagery to promote their ideology, that's not my intention in any way either. As I will soon explain, the real life conflicts and people only serve to inspire some aspects of the fictional setting of this fictional game.)

Premise

Despite the name referencing a famous Finnish soldier from the Winter War, Simo Häyhä, who is often referred to as the deadliest sniper in history, the game wouldn't actually be about him or even any real war. Instead, White Death would be a game set in a fictional conflict in the near future, where four players would play as special operators with high tech gear on one side while the opposing force would consist out of 12 players with inferior equipment. 

Each map would be a different snowy environment, mostly inspired by the forests and lakes of Eastern Finland and the wilderness of Lapland, with dynamic time and weather conditions that alter the temperature, wind, amount of snow on the ground and the density of snowfall. The weather would be randomized at the start of each match and then slowly change throughout it, resulting in a slightly different playground every time. Even the thickness of ice on lakes and rivers would vary, all the way from a barely frozen sheet to a strong enough layer that you could drive a tank on. (Although the game would be entirely infantry focused with no vehicles.) 

The weather would not only be a cosmetic change but an actual gameplay factor that would affect how the player needs to engage with their surroundings.

Basic gameplay

As mentioned before, the game would be asymmetrical, meaning that the players wouldn't start the match on even footing. Inspired by movies like Predator and the old Source mod Hidden: Source, as well as more modern multiplayer games like Rainbow Six: Siege and Dead by Daylight, White Death would play with the concept of the hunters and the hunted, and how that dynamic could switch easily. 

The smaller defending team would consist out of only four players, but they would have the advantage of futuristic gear as well as a better awareness of their surroundings (I will get to that soon.) These special forces would be equipped with a cloaking technology capable of essentially turning them invisible if they remain still, as well as masking their heat signature from thermal vision. Speaking of, they would all wear glasses capable of enabling thermal and night vision, meaning that they can detect their enemies in the cold environments like glowing lights in the dark. 

Additionally, they would all have a real-time GPS map available where they could both see each others' positions at all times, but also where the match objectives are. This would be extremely useful, because just like the weather would be randomized, so would the locations of any objectives on the map be shuffled each round from a few different possible locations. 

On the other side, the more numerous attackers would have three 4-man squads that are thrown into each battle match with lesser gear and a poorer understanding of their environment as the defenders. For example, they would lack the cloaking technology the defenders have, making them easier to spot in the snowy environments. They could all get thermal sights for their guns after some time, but even those require you to aim down your sight, which in turn would limit the player's awareness of their surroundings. And even then, the defenders' camouflage would give them a lot of protection from thermal detection. 

When it comes to any objectives, such as capturing a strategic point or destroying an important asset, the attackers would have to find their location first. They could use scouting technology like drones to their advantage, but they would not have the same real-time map of the area as the defenders, only a suggestion of the general area. Although, there could be perhaps some way to momentarily hack into the defenders' devices to reveal their positions or in turn jam their devices to limit their enemies' tactical awareness. 

The speed of the game would be closer to a more methodical and tactical approach of something like Hunt: Showdown or even Siege, instead of the more chaotic and fast-paced action of other more mainstream games like Call of Duty or Battlefield. Patience and teamwork would be rewarded while running around mindlessly would quickly end up with the player getting a bullet to the head from an enemy they did not see. 

But how would the winter actually factor into the player experience?

Dynamic playground

In most videogames snow is mostly just cosmetic. There might be some cool snow deformation happening in more modern games like The Last of Us Part II or Red Dead Redemption 2, meaning that your character leaves tracks as they move, but it doesn't actually do much. In survival games like The Long Dark, a game all about the cold, temperature is obviously a key factor determining your odds of, well, survival, but it's mostly just one more meter to keep track of alongside hunger and thirst. Numbers to either increase or lower.

In the White Death, the winter environment could be both a hazard and an advantage. As I alluded to before, thick snow would obviously slow the player down, while frozen puddles or slopes could cause them to slip and damage themselves if they carelessly run over them, and both situations would leave the player vulnerable to getting shot. On the other hand, holes could be dug into the snow with field shovels or blown up with grenades, giving a player a nice little foxhole to lie in ambush or to take cover. Ice on frozen rivers or lakes could also be destroyed to either drown players standing on it or to simply create a watery obstacle to block off angles of attack. And as the thickness of the ice would be random each match, there could also just be a chance that a careless player running onto thin ice would just fall through it themselves. Crawling on the ice while prone would obviously reduce the chances of it breaking, and players could use sound as well as their sight to determine how strong the ice is, just like in real life.

The dynamic weather would of course be another obstacle. Heavy snowfall and fog would make matches more tense, as it would be more difficult to see enemies from afar even with thermal sights. Especially the attackers could even get lost if they run around by themselves instead of sticking together as a team, as they lack the real-time GPS location of the defenders. However, perhaps a snowstorm could even interfere with the defenders' signal and devices. Strong winds could also affect guns on longer distances, so snipers would have a harder time hitting their targets even with good visibility, which in turn could occasionally make close-quarters combat a more viable option. Perhaps before every match, there could be a forecast of the weather that the players could expect in each match, so they could prepare appropriately. 

But when it comes to actual combat, perhaps the most crucial aspect would be body temperature. There are games where the player can decide between heavier armor that gives more protection but also slows you down or light armor that does the opposite. I think something similar could also be implemented into White Death, but the amount of protection from bullets and shrapnel wouldn't be the only factor to consider. Warmth would be another. Heavy winter gear obviously keeps you warm, but it also makes you slower and if you're constantly moving, it can really tire you out. Meanwhile lighter clothing is easier to move in, but if you stay still for too long, you'll start to freeze unless you find a source of heat, like a campfire, burning wreckage or a hot water bottle to stuff inside your clothes. 

How that body temperature would actually affect the player in the game could be varied. For example, getting cold would start to give them shivers and eventually affect their breathing, making it harder to aim and hold their breath to steady it. It could also slowly drain their stamina and eventually even make them pass out, essentially killing them unless a teammate revives them before their heart stops. However, remember the thermal vision I mentioned earlier? Lower body temperature would obviously make it more difficult for the enemy to spot a player, while running around would make them warmer until even the defenders' cloaking technology could not hide them anymore. On the flipside, lying still in snow for a long time could be purposefully used to lower body temperature, but if the player character is not dressed for it, doing so would eventually have its aforementioned drawbacks. 

Source: The Shining by Stanley Kubrick

One last thing that I don't think is a strictly necessary feature but would be a cool one, is persistent snow deformation. In most games where players leave tracks on the ground, those footprints usually fade away after some time and might not even be visible for all players in a multiplayer environment. However, in White Death, the prints that people leave in the snow by moving, digging or with explosives could be handled by the server instead on each client's side, similar to how something like the upcoming The Finals game handles its dynamic destruction. This way every player sees the same tracks, and the initially untouched snow in the environment would slowly change according to player activity and weather, with fresh snowfall slowly covering up old tracks. 

While mostly a cosmetic and atmospheric feature, this persistent snow deformation could also be used to detect enemy movement. Especially early on in a match, say that as an attacker, you see mostly untouched snow near a possible location of an objective, but there are tracks coming from the opposite direction that lead inside a nearby house. A perceptive player could use those tracks to anticipate an enemy ambush and turn that knowledge against their opponent. 

Conclusion

I'm aware that this game would probably not be terribly appealing to a mass market, but I do think that it could find a dedicated niche community of people looking for more demanding multiplayer experiences. The PC market especially is already host to a lot of hardcore FPS titles like Hunt: Showdown, Squad and Rising Storm 2, and White Death would be surely be at home among them. With a mix of light survival elements, stealth and tactical teamplay, it would at least be a rewarding game for those who are not afraid of a steeper learning curve. 

In the cold winter of White Death, one must either adapt or stain the snow with their freezing blood. 

The Last of Us Episode 6 Review: A Turning Point

While Episode 6 was slower than most of this season, it was also a touching turning point for the journey of Joel and Ellie. 

The following review contains spoilers for Episode 6 "Kin" of The Last of Us. 

This episode covers the "Fall" section from the game, with Joel and Ellie finally meeting Tommy before going to the university in search of the Fireflies, where things quickly go south. Like the episode title suggests, family is a big theme this time around. Just in one hour we explore a meeting of two brothers, new found love and community, grief for lost children and the big question of what Joel and Ellie are to each other. It's all very touching, with a lot of very intimate character moments, some sweet while others are heated or heartbreaking. 

To lighten the mood, we again do also get a lot of great bantering between the two leads while they travel, camp and have a shooting lesson. For example the line "You going to shoot this thing or get it pregnant?" will now forever live rent free in my head, immediately becoming a new iconic Ellie joke. 

I cannot stress enough how much I appreciate the new scenes the show is able to show us of the characters travelling together, something the game simply did not have the time to do. The moment where Ellie takes watch after Joel accidentally falls asleep is a great way to foreshadow the ending of the episode and what's to come, as the dynamic of the relationship slowly shifts. Joel cannot always be the protector, and Ellie isn't just a helpless little girl. It also reinforces Joel's fears that he talks about later. 

Personally I really enjoyed seeing a different side to Joel this episode. More than ever, we saw him being afraid, even to the point of having multiple panic attacks. I have a feeling that some people will have a problem with this more vulnerable side of Joel being showcased. However, I feel it is important to remind that despite his hard exterior, he is still human and everyone has their breaking point. Joel's personal Achilles' heel is his trauma from Sarah's death and the fear of reliving that. And if there is anyone Joel could trust with those feelings at his lowest point, it would be the one person he has grown up with, Tommy. The one person who knows the true pain that Joel has experienced, because he was there when it happened. 

That vulnerability also was necessary to believably convince Tommy. In the game the brothers only have a more heated discussion, a bit similar to the one in the bar. They almost come to blows before they are quickly interrupted by a sudden raider attack. (A fairly common occurrence in the game where a dramatic moment gets cut off by action, probably because the developers were afraid that people would otherwise get bored.) What eventually convinces Tommy to agree in the game is when he sees Joel rush to Ellie's aid and show genuine concern for the girl.

But without that raider attack, which would have immediately grown the budget cost of the episode and felt somewhat out of place, you need something else to make Tommy understand why exactly Joel asks him to take Ellie. It's not because Joel does not care enough or that he's incapable of doing it. It's because of much more sympathetic reasons: worry and fear. And in order to get that across, Joel has to crack open his tough shell for a moment. 

When it comes to how the episode looked, it was once again exceptional. The sets were all believable and detailed, not to mention that they felt very faithful to the games. Jackson especially looked almost straight out of Part II, and it was fun to see little nods to the second game, like the appearance of baby Shimmer and another girl who players will no doubt recognize. Then there were the beautiful vistas of Wyoming with the snow, running rivers and mountains in the back, which were absolutely breathtaking. As someone who loves hiking, I was almost jealous of Joel and Ellie at times. 

Now time for some nitpicking. Once again I felt like a very memorable scene taken almost straight out of the game felt a bit too distracting for me, as I could not help but to compare it to the original. The scene in question is where Joel finds Ellie reading a girl's diary and they argue about their relationship. Scenes like this make me almost wish I had not played the game, as I cannot objectively tell if the scene works or not. On a theoretical level it is cool to have a scene so faithful, but it simply fell somewhat flat for me on an emotional level. Maybe it's that Bella's more aggressive take on some of her lines wasn't as impactful for me as Ashley Johnson's slightly softer delivery. (I just watched a clip of the original scene to compare, and I almost immediately got teary-eyed.) I also found the line "Do you care about me or not?" a bit clumsy or too on the nose, and it seems like a weird change. That line came off as the producers being afraid that someone would not understand why Ellie was upset, so Mazin had to spell it out for everyone. 

It's especially bothersome, as that scene is one of my absolute favorites from the game and gets me emotional every time I watch it. This adaptation failed to deliver on that same impact, but I do realize it is very likely just due to my own high expectations and nostalgia. It could almost be called a similar effect to the "uncanny valley" in robotics. The term usually refers to robots (or CGI images) that look almost like humans but there is just something you can tell is a bit off. Watching some of these scenes from the show is kind of like that: It's very close to the thing it's mimicking, but not quite right. Yet I do realize that people who will play the game after watching the show first will probably feel the opposite, and think the game's version is worse. 

This realization does however make me a bit worried about the season's ending. (Don't worry, I won't spoil anything.) The game's last few minutes are probably among the two most iconic scenes from The Last of Us, the other being obviously Sarah's death. A part of me feels like they have to get it exactly right and that a faithful approach would be the safest bet. Another part of me fears that if they do a 1:1 recreation of that scene, it will once again ring a bit hollow for me. Which makes me unsure if I want them to surprise me with some slight variation while keeping the same broad beats and emotional core of the scene. 

Regardless, this was an amazing and touching episode that was also an important step in the story. There are only three episodes left, and I can't wait to see how things wrap up. 

The Last of Us Episode 5 Review: Beautifully Brutal

Episodes like these feel like they encapsulate how and why negative criticism of media is probably so much more common and "attractive" online. Tearing something apart is relatively easy, whereas trying to convey why something is great can seem more intimidating in some ways. I kind of just want to say "it was really, really great," and be done with the review. Because this episode indeed was once again both awesome and heartbreaking, but I'm not sure that just writing a post about all the things I liked is that interesting. 

However, I do consider myself a fairly capable writer, so I will try my best to get a bit more in-depth instead of going the path of least resistance. 

The best place to start would probably be to talk about the added perspective of the unnamed freedom fighter faction lead by Melanie Lynskey's Kathleen. I personally enjoyed how the show decided to take the opportunity to show a slightly different enemy faction from the one in the game. In the game, the "Hunters" as they are called, are a fairly one dimensional group of absolutely horrible people that mercilessly hunt people to scavenge their bodies for anything usable, such as a pair of shoes. They shoot every outsider on sight without questions, so the game does not really make you feel bad for killing any of them in return. Of course, you can find letters and other evidence around the city that explore their slow descent into their brutal lifestyle. However, you never get to really know a named character from their ranks, so they still just register as enemies to be killed or avoided. 

The show obviously once again has the advantage of being able to jump around and showcase different perspectives, which is where Kathleen comes in. I do not think I'm alone in saying that initially she comes off as someone you would not necessarily expect to be in charge of something close to a heavily armed paramilitary group. She is not physically imposing, she does not have a very commanding voice and I think I heard someone put it quite well when they said she radiates "neighborhood watch energy." Which is a hard contrast to someone like her right-hand man Perry (played by Jeffrey Pierce, who plays Tommy in the game), who seems like a more battle-hardened man. 

Apparently Craig Mazin was very much aware of this during production, judging by his comments on the subject on the official The Last of Us podcast. His reply was simply "Just keep watching the show." And I think this episode was why that is. Kathleen was the sister of the original leader of the resistance, who very much sounds like a person that would inspire people to follow him. An all around brave, good man, who cares for the well-being of the people around him, and actually wants to make a positive change. However, in the world of the Last of Us, it's one thing to inspire people to follow you, and another to have the guts to tell them to do seemingly awful things to achieve your goals. Like Perry said, the rebels loved Kathleen's brother, but he lacked the will for violence necessary for change. His death instead made him the perfect martyr to fuel the rebellion. Kathleen might seem harmless at first, but it's clear that she has no qualms about doing ugly things to reach her goals. 

Instead of weakness, Kathleen's undoing instead was her obsession with revenge, a theme that will very much come back later in future seasons. She ignored the real threat, the infected underground, to pursue pointless vengeance against Henry for selling out her brother to FEDRA. The idea of the hidden and suppressed problems surfacing once they can no longer be ignored is not very subtle, but it is effective and fitting. Her story is also fittingly capped off with her getting surprised by the creepy child-Clicker because she keeps trying to kill Henry, even with a much more pressing problem on her hands. 

That being said, while I enjoyed seeing more humanity and characters that muddle the distinction of good and bad people, it is still very clear which side the show wants us to root more for. That being the side with not only our protagonists but also the side that clearly cares more for children. Kathleen not showing an ounce of sympathy for Sam felt like an obvious judgement of her character. To top it off, her comment about "the world not revolving around a single child" also beautifully showcased her own hypocrisy, as everything for her was about her brother and her selfish need for revenge. 

Guess this is as good as time as any to focus on the highlight of the episode, that being Henry and Sam. It still amazes me how effectively the show is able to get us to care about two characters in such a short period of time. Just like with Frank and Bill, we only really have one episode truly featuring these two brothers, but the performances and writing is so good that I was absolutely gutted by the end, despite having a good idea where their story was most likely going. 

Both Lamar Johnson as Henry and Keivonn Woodard as Sam did really well as their characters. Especially Johnson, who perfectly gave off the energy of someone who is constantly slightly out of his element but still trying to keep up appearances for his little brother. The change to make Sam deaf was also an interesting one, but I'm not necessarily sure what it brings narratively to the story other than him perhaps being even more dependent on Henry for survival. I have yet to listen to the official podcast about this episode, mostly get my own, raw perspective out first, but I am interested to her Neil and Craig's view on the subject. Regardless, it is also just nice to see more deaf representation in media, so I'm not complaining either. The show still manages to make Ellie and Sam bond believably despite their obstacles in communication. 

Which brings me to the last few scenes and why I think they were incredibly well done. In many ways the events at the house went very similarly to the game, but the changes somehow made it hurt even more. The biggest change is Ellie learning about the bite before Sam turns, as in the game Sam hides it and his last scene with Ellie ends with a colder tone. Here instead, in a heartwarming way Sam trusts Ellie enough to show her the bite, but as Ellie is still a kid, she tries to use her own blood to make him immune and save him. Then like an older sister with a sick brother, she stays the night by his side for comfort, which also means that Sam got to spend his last moments with someone who cares about him. 

Because of how much they had changed Frank and Bill's story from the game, this episode managed to constantly keep me on edge and wondering whether or not Henry and Sam would suffer the same fate as their game counterparts. Before the reveal of the bite, I was constantly thinking what surprising twist they could do to subvert my expectations. Then when Ellie smears her blood on Sam's wound, despite me knowing that that is not how the immunity would most likely work, there is a very slight hope that just maybe it could. Of course, it doesn't, which was not surprising but still heartbreaking.

Here we come back to Bella Ramsey once again continuing to prove herself as an actor, as when she's yelling for Joel to help her, she really does sound like a scared child. Not a woman, but a child, which makes the scene so much more gut-wrenching. And then when Henry decides to shoot himself, the closeup on Ellie's face and her reaction was unbelievably effective in conveying the horror and tragedy of the situation. The decision to not really show either Sam or Henry's dead bodies is also a welcome one, since that would be unnecessary. 

There is the possibility of criticizing the show for introducing two black characters only to immediately kill them off, which is definitely something I have heard about the game. Especially when Sarah in the show was also one of the few black characters, and we all know how her story ended. However, that discussion is not for me to really have as a white guy, so I will leave that to others to talk about. I am purely acknowledging it being a thing, but don't really have much worthwhile to say about it. 

I just want to quickly talk about the more technical things I enjoyed, which were the music and the last action scene. I personally have really enjoyed the original score for the show thus far, which is mixed in with recognizable tracks from the game. The soundtrack to the show strikes a good balance of using the old material Gustavo Santaolalla composed for the game, as well as new music that still very much fits the world. The music does not feel like it is just lazily reusing stuff but it still honors the game, which feels like it should be way more common in adaptations but sadly isn't. Particularly the scene in this episode of Henry explaining his plan to Joel and Ellie felt elevated because of the music accompanying it. Each action scene has also had a really effective soundtrack to it that really conveys the necessary tension and oppressive feeling of danger. 

And finally, I just really appreciated the scene with the sniper and the following horde set piece. The big "Bloater" killing Perry in the same way they can kill you in the game was a fun, gruesome nod that was really fun in a twisted way. 

All in all, I would say this episode was probably among the strongest ones yet, although I still really cherish Episode 3 because of how deeply it affected me and how bravely it made changes to the story. But this one definitely delivered both in terms of a emotionally effective story but also exciting and tense action. 

The Last of Us Episodes 3 & 4 Review: Importance of Adapting

Episodes 3 and 4 of HBO's The Last of Us are great examples of why and how to adapt your story in a way that both works better for your intended medium, possibly improves on the source material and still essentially serves the same function as the original. A certain scene in Episode 4 also showcases why simply "sticking to the game" and being too faithful can at times in fact be a mistake.

This review contains spoilers for Episodes 3 & 4 of The Last of Us show and the first game. The text also contains some minor discussion about suicide. 

Last week I failed to write a review for Episode 3, which mostly was the result of me procrastinating until I realized that everything I wished to say was already said by others, and probably in a more elegant fashion. Simply put, I absolutely loved the episode and have very few, if any, gripes about it. It utterly destroyed me emotionally, to the point that instead of some "manly tears" (a fairly ridiculous concept to be honest), I looked very similar to how Bill did as he cried on the couch after Frank's gutting proposal. 

Episode 4 was a strong continuation of the story, bringing us back to something more familiar to fans of the game: Joel and Ellie slowly bonding on their road trip before getting ambushed by the most dangerous enemy, other survivors. 

While the two episodes have little that truly connects them, which makes reviewing them together slightly more challenging, I do see a very strong case in them for why smart changes from your source material is important. As someone who spent a lot of time studying why video game adaptations like Paramount's Halo did not work, it is interesting to see a show like the Last of Us that is both at times incredibly faithful and yet unafraid to make bold diversions when necessary. Especially as often a popular sentiment among audiences of adaptations, be it of books, comics or video games, is that the films should just "stick to the source material," and that the reason shows like Halo are bad is that they did not respect what the stories they were based on. Episode 3 has received a lot of similar criticism from straying "too far" from the game, but I'm of a completely different mind on this. 

It is true that Episode 3 told a very different story about Bill and Frank that many of us know from the game. It also did it by focusing on a seemingly detached B-plot for the majority of the episode, only following our central characters and "main story" at the beginning and end of the episode. And while it might be easy to say that the focus on Bill and Frank's love story slowed down the pacing of the show, I would still argue that it was in no way unnecessary or forced. 

It's easy for people to get stuck on things that are different and equate that to the same as it being bad, but if you truly examine the show on its own merit, you can see why that is not always the case. Let's break down these common arguments about the show, while ignoring the obvious homophobia that is also a major part of some people's criticism. I will be repeating some things other people have already pointed out, but hopefully I will be able to convey all the different talking points effectively to help form a coherent case. 

First of all, let's talk about how and why the episode is different to the game, and if that makes it somehow worse. In the game Joel and Ellie arrive in "Bill's Town" and fight some infected before meeting Bill, still very much alive but far from alright. Bill is alone, and clearly has been for a while. He is paranoid, bitter and hostile towards Joel and Ellie, especially the latter, which results in some funny banter between the two. There is no mention of Frank initially, because unlike in the show, Joel has never met him. At one point Bill references Frank by telling Joel a story: "Once upon a time I had somebody I cared about... A partner. Somebody I had to look after. And in this world that sort of shit is good for one thing: getting you killed." Later the player can find a letter and learn that Frank and Bill had a falling out, because Bill was unable to change, while Frank eventually got tired of him and tried to leave. However, Frank got bit by infected on his way out of town and hung himself before turning. Bill, Joel and Ellie find his dead body in an abandoned house while escaping from infected. Bill is clearly somewhat upset by this, but as their relationship ended badly, he also remains bitter at Frank and uses that to mask any vulnerability from Joel.

In the game, Bill's section serves two main functions for the story. From a plot perspective, Bill helps Joel and Ellie get a car, which they do by sneaking and fighting their way through countless infected. Thematically and emotionally however, Bill acts as a warning for Joel about what kind of a bitter and sad man he could become, should he continue to act selfishly and close his heart to other people. (Which he does learn from, although one might argue that perhaps not in the best way.) Bill's character is a tragic one, because even though he continues to survive, his lonely existence is far from truly living. 

However, the game's version of Bill's and Frank's story was changed for the TV adaptation for multiple reasons. While in the game it is strongly alluded to (and confirmed by the writer) that their relationship was romantic, we never get to see it and only learn about it from vague dialogue and Frank's suicide note. Bill's sexuality was also hinted at by the porn magazine Ellie finds from his stash. This vagueness was partly the result of the mindset of 2013, where an openly gay relationship between two men in an already risky big budget video game would have surely scared off investors and potential core gamers. (Not surprising, give the reaction to this episode.) The game simply needed to succeed, as it was a completely new IP. Additionally in a game, backstory is easier to convey through dialogue and optional collectables the player can find and read, while on television it's more effective to show that instead of simply telling. 

But most importantly, the bitter ending to their relationship and Frank's suicide in some ways also contributed to the common trope of "burying your gays." For a long time in media it was common to  kill off any explicitly gay characters and very rarely, if ever, were queer relationships depicted to have happy endings. In stories they would often end tragically with one or both characters dying, and their whole purpose in the story might be to die. The image of Frank's character, a canonically gay man, hanging from suicide was a painful reminder of the very real pain many queer people have had to face due to oppression and internalized phobias. For more in-depth discussions about the topic, I would encourage people to seek texts and videos from LGBTA+ creators, such as Jessie Earl's review of the episode. Even though Bill and Frank die in the show, they got to grow old together and choose their own ending in a beautiful way.

In the show, Bill's and Frank's story serves two very similar purposes as the game but in a drastically different way. From a plot perspective, they still help Joel and Ellie get a car, just without the drawn out fighting through hordes of infected, that in a game works to give the player something to do, but does not really serve any function in a passive medium. After all, action scenes in a story should further the plot or grow the characters in some way, instead of existing for the sake of it. 

Again, on a subtextual level Bill and Frank's story and the letter reinforce the theme of love and fuel Joel's character growth. While in the game Bill functions as a warning to Joel, this version of Bill is instead a positive example of the opposite. I would argue that both versions of Bill are very much the same character at heart, but more like alternative timelines of the same person. Bill in the game was unable to grow past his paranoia and toxic beliefs of what it takes to survive. Bill in the show started out the same way but over time, with Frank's help, learned to live instead of simply surviving. Despite the major difference in how his story ends, the end result is more or less the same: Joel learns about the difference between surviving and living.

And if we want to talk about respecting characters, I would argue that the show did that more than the game did. The game did not allow Bill to grow, to change. It doomed him to a lonely, sad life while barely even delving into a fundamental part of his character's story, that being his relationship with Frank. The show instead committed almost a full episode to develop his character and allowed him to grow and change as a person, instead of being forever stuck in emotional stasis. 

When it comes to how the episode might feel detached from the rest of the show as some argue, I would point to the earlier points about how it is important for Joel's development. It is obvious how the letter affects him, especially as this version of Joel has known Bill and Frank for over a decade. 

And finally, this is the beauty of a television format. The Last of Us is not a film, and TV has always used the episode structure to sometimes deviate from the typical "three act structure" of storytelling (despite how many Disney produced shows seem to function as essentially 6-10 hour movies). That is the advantage of having more than three hours to tell a story. It is not at all uncommon to have so called "bottle episodes" that concentrate on one location as a narrative tool, or entire flashback episodes, or even seemingly detached storylines that can function almost as their own short films within a season. And history has brought us a number of great examples of these more "independent" episodes, even if they are sometimes divisive like Breaking Bad's "Fly". 

These are not to be confused with filler. Filler is when a show's runtime is artificially padded out to fill a certain quota of episodes with something that does not develop the characters or themes in a meaningful way and has no consequences outside of the episode. Episode 3 is not filler, as it develops and furthers the themes of the show and it does very clearly have an effect on the plot on a mechanical level (Joel and Ellie get a car, and Joel cannot simply offload Ellie onto Frank and Bill) and on an emotional level. Not to mention that clearly a lot of love, effort and money was put into making the episode, something that is rarely the case with filler. 

In the end, even if we put everything that aside, Episode 3 was a beautiful story told incredibly well and something new that managed to positively surprise a lot of fans and new audiences, engrossing them for an hour of great TV. At least for those of us who are not put off by two gay men kissing on the screen and instead see them as people in love, regardless of their gender. Was is strictly necessary for the series to work? No, of course they could have just gone the "easy route" and done something more similar to the game or simply skipped Bill's character altogether. Yet do I think Episode 3 is a worthwhile addition to the story and the best one out of the four so far? Absolutely. 

Now, let's actually talk a bit about Episode 4. It was once again a good one, this time focusing on Joel and Ellie for almost the whole runtime. This was probably the first episode where I truly began to love Bella Ramsey's portrayal of Ellie, as we see even more of her softer and playful side. She tells Joel puns from a jokebook and takes digs at him for drinking coffee (something that was referenced in the second game). The scene of them laughing together at a stupid joke before going to sleep was one I especially treasured, as it was refreshing to see Joel's hard shell crack for a moment. It was another great nugget of something that we never really saw in the game but feels like it could have happened off screen. 

We also see the two of them open up more about their past, and moments like Ellie asking Joel to reassure her that they won't be found in the woods or Joel teaching Ellie how to properly hold a gun are lovely ways of building the foundation for their eventual father-daughter dynamic. 

I also appreciated how they drew out Ellie's first time saving Joel, effectively and believably reminding us about the cost of taking a human life. It also shows that despite her darker side, Ellie is not a emotionless murder machine at this point and only a child still. Joel's later revelation of having been on both sides also reinforces the idea that while he was rightfully acting in self-defense when he fought the ambushers, it is too simplistic to label the others as "bad" and Joel as "good." 

The ambush scene as a whole was tense but neither was it shot in a way that most people might call good action. This is not a criticism but more of a observation, as it is clearly intentional and Craig Mazin has stated so. The Last of Us is not an action show and Joel is not John Wick or a nearly immortal video game protagonist that can shake off bullet wounds. The show clearly avoids glorifying violence with gory action shots and impressive choreography, but instead aims to depict brutal but grounded scenes of violence that serve a narrative purpose in favor of spectacle. The creators are more interested in the emotional effect killing has on the person doing it rather than showcasing the act of shooting people. 

I truly enjoyed the episode, but to conclude my take on the importance of making smart adaptations, I want to quickly mention how my least favorite scene in Episode 4 was the one that was unarguably the most "faithful" to the game. That being the scene with Ellie and Joel in the car, listening to Hank Williams and bickering over a porn magazine. The scene was basically lifted straight from the game, pretty much line for line and with almost identical editing and pacing. In the game it is definitely among my favorite scenes, despite it having essentially no real importance to the plot and mostly functioning to bring some might needed levity after an hour of tense combat scenarios. However, and perhaps this is just me, in the show the similarities were so obvious that it actually took me out of it. I could not help but to unconsciously compare the delivery of the dialogue to the original scene with Ashley Johnson and Troy Baker, as it is still so fresh in my mind after playing the game numerous times and having recently gone through it again with the release of the remastered Part 1 for PS5. 

This is not to say that the version of the scene in the show is necessarily worse, but to someone so familiar with the source material it feels that way. There have been similar moments in the previous episodes, like Joel "killing time" on the couch after his initial meeting with Ellie, but none have distracted me as much. Perhaps it's the comedic nature of the scene that does it, as comedy is as much about the timing and delivery as it is about the actual text. So when the only thing I can hear in my head is how the original actors delivered the same lines, it ruins that intended effect. 

Personally, I think that scene alone serves as the perfect example of why adapting a video game scene word to word and shot for shot could be cool fan service, but might also be a disservice to the story for those familiar with the original work. Adapting a scene from a book or comic to film is different because the mediums are so far apart, but animated cutscenes in a video game are a lot more similar to films and television, especially in a game like The Last of Us. It's why the words "stick to the game" ring so hollow to me. As long as the major plot beats, the themes and characters are there, I would much rather have new original takes on these scenes if they serve the same function in the story. There are a million ways you could make a scene with Ellie and Joel goofing around in the car that gives us that same feeling as the original, without needing to mimic it exactly. I feel like the moment of Joel slurping coffee to spite Ellie proves this point.

But these are also personal tastes and obviously I cannot tell how well that scene works for someone completely new to the story. It is just particularly noticeable because for the most part The Last of Us has managed to bring us a familiar story with interesting twists and additions that make me feel like the game was truly worth adapting. If it keeps that up, we might have a true masterpiece on our hands.

The Last of Us Episode 2 Review: Sweet And Sour

The second episode of HBO's The Last of Us, "Infected", is simultaneously an incredibly faithful adaptation of the game in many aspects and a great episode as a whole in my opinion, but it ended with a choice that a lot of fans will probably view as being controversial. 

Once again, this review contains major spoilers for Episode 2, so be warned.

Just as the pilot episode, this one also begins with a chilling opening sequence. Not only did it show us a small but welcome glimpse of the outbreak happening outside of the U.S., something the games never really delved into, but it also confirmed information many were already theorizing based on the first episode. The initial Cordyceps outbreak in the series spread as quickly as it did thanks to contaminated flour, something that neither Joel or Sarah ate in the first episode. 

The rest of the episode is similarly filled with a lot of good tension like the opening, both in the relationships between characters and in scenes dealing with the titular infected. While Tess and Ellie quickly began to bond somewhat, Joel remains cold and at times even hostile towards the young girl, who he now believes to be a ticking time bomb due to the bite in her arm. I enjoyed seeing the characters finally get some real screen time together, and I think the show is definitely doing a lot of good groundwork for the story to come. 

Then there are the scenes with the infected. The show's introduction to the "Clickers" (as they are called in the game) was amazingly done, with basically perfect sound design that was particularly effective because I watched the episode with good headphones on. Pretty much every detail from the movements, behavior and the look of the blind infected was almost ripped straight out of the game, in a very believable way. I especially liked the subtle use of the flashlights to reinforce the idea that the Clickers are blind, as Joel was able to shine a light at one without it noticing. Simply put, the whole museum scene was great from start to finish.

I already gushed about the production and set design in the first review, so I won't talk about it too much here, but it was still incredibly good. All in all, I could rave as much as I want about the episode, about how faithful it is in many ways, how good it looks and how I love a lot of the performances, but there is that one scene everyone is talking about, and I have some thoughts on it as well.

Okay, so the weird "kiss" moment before Tess dies. Let's just say... I'm not mad, but I definitely feel conflicted about it. I still think the episode is very good, but this one moment did make me think that  the character of Tess as a whole could have been handled better. 

The scene itself wasn't necessarily "bad" if it existed in a vacuum. Instead my issue is that it did not feel like it was a fitting end for Tess as a character when compared to the game. Sure, she technically made a more impactful sacrifice than in the game where she just manages to take out a couple of FEDRA soldiers before getting shot. However, the original moment of her death is less about the consequence of her decision but more about her willingness to go out on her own terms instead of succumbing to the infection, and most importantly about how she does it: by choosing to fight in the face of certain doom. Her intention and actions and what those informs us about her character in return are more important to the story than how much it actually helps Joel and Ellie on a practical level. Sacrificing character (no pun intended) in favor of plot convenience is not something that I am a fan of as a screenwriter.

Even if we ignore how the two versions of the character die for now, there are other things that change the character of Tess in the show and in turn make her seem weaker than in the game. Remember how the show left out most of the Robert stuff from the game in episode 1? While I will defend that as a good choice for pacing reasons, it still means we do not really get to see Tess in action or do a lot of the things that define her character early on in the game. 

For example, almost as soon as we are introduced to the character in the game, we see how people who are willing to fight Joel immediately back off because of their respect for her. We also get to see her have a "Han shot first" moment, where she shoots one of Robert's goons without flinching after being shit-talked by them. Then once Joel and Tess catch Robert, she coldly interrogates him while Joel acts as the muscle, before she shoots Robert twice in the face. Not once, but twice, wasting a bullet purely out of spite instead of rage. 

While this might make her initially a bit harder to relate to, especially with the show's reluctance to revel in violence against living people, it also shows us about how she is not necessarily a good person. Which is something that the show insists on multiple times in the dialogue, but does not really show us with her actions. 

Tess in the show acts tough and talks like a hardened survivor who has done morally questionable things, but we barely ever see her really do much that would indicate that. Then when the first Clickers show up, she completely misses her shot, trips and falls, twisting her ankle, and then gets bitten off screen. She manages to swing an axe at one of the Clickers, but does not kill her and Joel has to finish the job. Finally, when she has her big moment of sacrifice, instead of grabbing any of the dozens of grenades lying around, she opts to use a faulty lighter, and when it does not work, she simply freezes up and lets an infected French kiss her until one last flick of the lighter that just so happens to work and blow up the horde. 

I want to emphasize that I'm not going to argue the narrative logic of the scene. I don't think it matters whether the infection was the cause of her sudden freezing up or if it was a conscious choice to give her more time instead of getting ripped apart. What matters to me is how that moment along with the rest of the changes made in some ways felt like reducing a once rounded, capable and strong female character to someone with more bark than bite compared to her inspiration. Also having her existence in the show be concluded with something akin to sexual assault, a moment that feels like it is mostly made for shock value, just left sort of a sour taste in my mouth. 

Regardless, I do think saying that they "ruined" Tess as a whole would be an overstatement. Anna Torv was a great choice for the role and her brief time in the show has still been some of the highlights thus far. There are a lot of great moments of dialogue between her, Ellie and Joel, and I loved how we got a better understanding of the two smugglers' relationship. 

Despite the conflicting note the episode might have ended on, I still do believe it was a good one and I'm definitely excited for what's to come. I have heard a lot of murmurings about how Episode 3 is supposed to be great, and based on the trailers it seems we are going to get more expanding to the story, which I'm looking forward to. 

The Last of Us Episode 1 Review: A Promising Start

It's finally here!

When I initially saw the news that HBO was going to adapt the videogame The Last of Us into a television series with Craig Mazin and Neil Druckmann at the helm, I was both excited and very nervous. See, the games are to this day some of my all time favorites, especially the first one, so I was understandably worried whether or not they could pull it off. Famously, video game adaptations are rarely decent and usually pretty horrible, save for a few more recent animated shows like Arcane and Cyberpunk: Edgerunners. However, I personally loved Mazin's previous show, the historical drama Chernobyl, and even though Druckmann has upset a large portion of the fanbase with the sequel, I still respect him as a writer. (You can read some of my thoughts on Part II here.) Not to mention that having someone who was so integral in creating the story of the game be involved with its adaptation would surely bode good for being faithful to the source material. And if any company felt like a good pairing with the gritty survival story of the game, it was HBO. With them also casting Pedro Pascal as Joel, who I immediately figured as a perfect choice for the role, I felt like if any adaptation had a chance of succeeding, it could be this one. 

Thankfully, I can say that at least Episode 1 of the new show got a lot right. While it remains to be seen if the rest of the show can deliver, this first taste of it got me feeling hopeful. 

Fair warning, this review will contain spoilers for Episode 1, so read at your own risk. 

Right off the bat, the show introduces us to the threat of the Cordyceps in a very interesting way that differs from the game. Through a fictional talk show from the sixties, a scientist tells the audience a gripping monologue of the lurking danger of this very real fungus, even if it is still only infecting insects in our world. The whole scene was chilling with the oppressive silence of the audience and host conveying how terrifying and uncomfortable this subject is. Even though it is hard for me to judge, I feel like this opening was an effective way of getting the necessary exposition to new audiences unfamiliar with the games, setting up the grounded and hopeless atmosphere right from the start.

That same grounded take can be felt throughout the episode. The sets, costume design, visual effects and everything else on the screen made the places we see feel very lived in and real, something that was also the case with Chernobyl. I also think it was an interesting idea to change the date of the outbreak from 2013 to 2003, as the lack of smartphones and social media makes it that much more believable that Sarah is oblivious to the events unfolding around her. The small detail of Tommy's "Operation Desert Storm" bumper sticker was also a nice touch, that not only sets us in a place and time but also tells us about his character without needing to say a word. 

Talking about characters, this is a good time to comment on the casting. Honestly, I don't think there was a single weak link, other than maybe the actor who played Robert, whose line delivery felt somehow a bit off but that could be down to just directing instead of the performer. While some people might have a problem with the ethnicity of certain actors, I could not care less and I thought all of the important ones portrayed their characters well. Nico Parker as Sarah was just the right amount of sassy but still believably vulnerable when things started going south, making her immediately likable and her tragic death that much harder to watch. As I mentioned before, I always believed Pedro Pascal would be an amazing Joel, and at least in this first episode I felt I was proven correct. Despite having seen Sarah's death scene in the game more times I can count, it still got me.

My biggest worry coming into this show was Bella Ramsey as Ellie, not because of the reasons some weirdos have focused on like how she looks physically, but because I had no other reference for her acting skills other than her role as Lady Mormont in Game of Thrones. While she was a scene stealer and a fan favorite in that show, she still played a minor and fairly one-note character that only really had one mode: being a tough little girl. Ellie definitely needs to be tough, but she's a layered character who can be charming, funny and at times vulnerable. Whoever plays her has a big role to fill, so getting the casting right was fundamental to the show's success.

Prior to seeing the first episode, I read from reviewers with access to the whole season that Bella Ramsey was a perfect Ellie, which alleviated some of my concerns. Now that I've seen the premiere, I can't say I'm completely sold on her yet as we saw so little of Ellie and need more time for the dynamic between her and Joel to evolve, but what we did get of her was good. Her take definitely felt different to Ashley Johnson's, but a lot of it might come down more to the writing than Bella's performance. So far we've mostly only seen the "tough girl" act from her in this episode, some of it coming off as a bit forced, but there were small glimpses of the girl behind the mask, and I especially liked those moments. Specifically the scene with Ellie and Marlene was a great addition to this story, and Ramsay's delivery of "Why won't you let me go home?" was what proved to me that she can be a great actor. 

The actual story and delivery of the first episode was incredibly faithful to the game in many ways, to the point that it was at times almost distracting how close some scenes were. With specific lines used straight from the game and certain shots being almost identical, this could very well be the most faithful adaptation of a video game I've seen by far without it feeling like just fan service. The interesting thing is, while I could often marvel at how down to the smallest detail they got a lot of it, my favorite things were all the new scenes and story elements that were only alluded to in the game but not seen. I loved seeing more of the outbreak day with Sarah before everything falls apart, and the glimpses into the inner workings of the Fireflies and Ellie being held captive along with the cold opening from the 60s were all great additions. Funnily enough, I almost want the future episodes to differ more from the game, as long as key points in the story are respected. 

I watched the episode twice, first by myself the morning it came out (the episodes are released at 4 a.m. here in Finland) and then again a day later with my partner. On a second viewing it became apparent that Episode 1 does have a bit of a pacing issue. This isn't surprising considering the fact that it was initially supposed to be two episodes that were then made into one. The first episode would have originally ended after Joel tosses the body of the little boy into the fire and we see a glimpse of Ellie looking out of a window. However, it's not hard to see why producers thought that as the real inciting incident of the story is Joel and Ellie meeting each other (and not Sarah's death as some may believe, that's just the prologue), it would be important to include it in the first episode as their relationship is really what the show is about. 

Personally, I think the premiere episode is great, and there aren't really any things I would necessarily cut out, but the fact of the matter is that it is a long episode with an odd structure. After the prologue, which is roughly 30 minutes, the show has to introduce a completely new setting with the Boston QZ and all the new characters like Tess, Marlene and Ellie that were absent from the first half of the episode. (You could also argue that Joel is almost a different character after 20 years, and the audience needs to be shown what he has become.) It's not hard to tell that the second half was supposed to be another episode, as the pace takes a hard dip and slows down to another buildup and a barrage of exposition after the first "halfway point" that is Sarah's death.   

For fans of the game like me, I don't think that's really an issue especially on a first watch, as we are so wrapped up in gushing about how well the show is recreating the story from the game. Yet I do have to wonder if newcomers will be a bit overwhelmed by the amount of characters, factions and plot points that are introduced just in the first episode, and whether the pace and length of it will make the second half feel too slow. I've yet to talk to anyone who is unfamiliar with the game but has started watching the show, but it does seem that the general consensus online thus far has been thankfully very positive.

I have a lot more thoughts, but this review is already painfully late and if I'm planning on writing about the show weekly, it's not necessarily to make this into a horribly long essay. Overall my impressions of the show so far are that I'm positively surprised, relieved it doesn't suck and very excited to see more! 

(Note: I've found it surprisingly difficult to get good quality images of the episode to use in these reviews, so you'll just have to settle for text only for now. Even if it does look less appealing. Sorry!)