With ‘The Last Of Us’ selling 3.5 million copies in just three weeks and therefore becoming the fastest selling PS3 exclusive of all time, you can almost guarantee that Sony has green lit the sequel. However, I can’t help feeling that it does not need one. ‘The Last Of Us’ is a memorable and captivating game, the like of which I’ve never experienced before. With its thrilling story and solid gameplay, it found the perfect balance that only few games can claim to come close to matching. I would hate for it to land a sequel and ruin what made ‘The Last Of Us’ so great.
If Naughty Dog were to do a sequel I worry that the typical norms of sequels would be incorporated into the game, superfluous back-of-the-box bullet points like more enemies and weapons for example. What made the enemies in ‘The Last Of Us’ so terrifying and equally as believable, in particular the infected, is that there was only four types based on the amount of time you had been infected. It would be such a shame if they threw in more versions of the infected just to make the game slightly different as they would completely overshadow the horrific nature of the Clickers. What Naughty Dog did so well is make you feel terrified of only a handful of infected, rather than flooding dozens of them on screen, because it suited the ambiance created throughout the entire game. Every combat scenario you find yourself in, whether it’s with the infected or hunters, you’re fearful of every single enemy you face because you quickly realize that you might not make it out alive. So why overwhelm the player with countless amounts of enemies when you’re intimidated by so few? Additionally, with so little supplies in the world, a huge wave of enemies would be impossible to overcome, and by adding more supplies or weapons it just becomes a typical third person shooter.
I do agree that the world of ‘The Last Of Us’ is calling out for more stories and I’m looking forward to seeing what Naughty Dog has planned for the single player DLC; maybe it could be from the perspective of the Fireflies or other survivors, which would be fine, but if five years down the line I see a trailer at Sony’s E3 press conference of Joel and Ellie walking through some woods battling some new type of infected I will cry inside. I want ‘The Last Of Us’ to be a game we remember years down the line as the apex of the PS3, a game we can revisit and be treated to a one-of-a-kind experience, a masterpiece that will be treasured for years to come because that is what it deserves. I’m afraid that Naughty Dog will try too hard to improve something that is already perfect and ruin what makes ‘The Last Of Us’ so special. How can you improve perfection? Naughty Dog is an extremely talented team and it baffles me that they can produce games to such a high quality in a relatively short amount of time, but they have to slip up sometime right? Would you look at ‘The Last Of Us’ in the same way if it’s sequel got an 8/10? Would you fundamentally feel that it did not need it?
I understand that it is an industry after all and Naughty Dog is ultimately there to make money. But I hope they realize that a game this distinctive and this extraordinary just does not need a sequel or a franchise for that matter. It is rare we come across big-budget games of this caliber that have achievements that are not its visuals or action set-pieces, but its characters and their story. It was a shock when Naughty Dog revealed ‘The Last Of Us’, a team that was well known for their mature and action orientated games. I just can’t help feel that if they reveal a sequel it will lack the same effect as its masterful predecessor.
More from The Last of Us on HSR:
Why the ending to The Last of Us is perfect - http://highscorereviews.com/2013/07/09/opinion-why-the-ending-to-the-last-of-us-is-perfect/