I had an epiphany today, and I decided to restructure Act I of the game The Last of Us Part 2. The structure of this story is a mess. Let's go.
First, Act I is not the introduction. Act I is the set up. What's the difference? An introduction is "Hello, my name is Joshua." A set up is "Joshua has this goal, this motive, these stakes, these obstacles, these resources, etc." The set up is your promise to your audience that this is the story you are going to tell. You are not introducing the story to them; you're setting it up for them. Act II is the execution where you deliver on promises you make in Act I. Act III is the resolution where you resolve the major conflict, answer any questions, and reestablish the new norm for the surviving characters, in other words, the consequences of the story.
So, the opening of the game features Joel and Tommy on horses and they're walking through beautiful AAA game studio scenery. Cool. No complaint from a game design perspective. This is a beautiful way to show off your art to the players. Cool. But from a story perspective, this is a weird way to start the narrative. Why? Because Joel isn't the point of view character in the game. He dies in the beginning. Ellie is the point of view character. Let's tell the players what they can expect right away so they don't feel like there was a bait and switch. So far, I think only George R. R. Martin did a good job at that. It's tricky to do. Whatever you drag the audience through, they have to have a good time. That's it. If they're not happy with the execution of an idea, then they will reject or resent the rest of the ride, and the author.
I'm going to turn Act I into 6 scenes. There are gaps in each scene and in between each scene to be filled with dialogue and gameplay, but I'm not worried about that now. I'm just structuring right now.
SCENE 1
I would start Act I with that scene were Ellie is studying, and she receives a late-night visit from Joel, and he teaches her a song on the guitar. Why? To set up the point of view character, and to establish what knowledge she possesses about the deed that Joel is going to get punished for at the end of Act I. It's also a sweet scene, and here's what else I like about it. This scene is the epilogue for the first game. After the first game, the audience might want an epilogue to show what it was all for, for the sake of certainty, id est, is Ellie happy? The first game ended on a note of uncertainty, which was great. Don't change it. But, for the second game, give the audience the satisfaction of that delayed epilogue. Then, you want to use the epilogue to segway into the introduction of your point of view character in her new normal life. She's a teenager, she's in a new house, it's a nice house. She's in a new town. It's a nice town. They have a nice life. Her surrogate dad has the luxury to bring her a guitar and sing her a song and teach her the guitar, and this guitar becomes a skill that Joel passes down to Ellie that isn't violent or utilitarian. It's human and it's art. This helps emphasize the tragedy later. Good call. This is setting up that Ellie has her happily ever after, or as close as it could be.
Now we add the deep seeded doubt that spoils this happily ever after and calls everything into question again, and shows the audience that the point of view character is not satisfied. While Joel is playing the guitar, Ellie has flashbacks to the moment when Joel told her his false version of events at the Fireflies HQ, and we see doubt and uncertainty in Ellie's face. Ellie will then mask this doubt and lie to Joel. This hints at an inner conflict caused by betrayal of Joel's lie which can be developed later in Act II.
That's your introduction scene. Do not show Joel revealing the story to Tommy like the game did. Why? First, the audience does not need to see this. If you're coming to Part 2 from Part 1, it's redundant. If you're coming to Part 2 and you never saw Part 1, let the new audience be pleasantly surprised, or horribly surprised, later. Second, there's no point in the audience having confirmation that Joel told Tommy what happened. It doesn't have any significance to the story of Part II.
SCENE 2
I'm going to be honest, I forgot how the game went. I think they show a whole bunch of scenes out of order. But we need a time skip. Ellie 14 years has been introduced. Now, Ellie 18 years, or however old she is now, needs to be introduced. We need to establish some general story conflict or a general goal for Ellie. She has obligations to serve the town as some sort of defender or soldier or ranger thing. We are establishing for the audience that the zombie plague is still very much a problem, and we're showing how it affects the characters today. Ellie has a day-to-day routine. There's people she talks to, and things she does. I recall her being visited by a handsome friend and I recall a conversation about her wearing tennis shoes instead of boots for the snow, which is dumb. Also, there was a snow ball fight that might have been endearing to someone on staff, but I have no investment in the NPC children so cut this scene cause it's slow and boring.
Then, we have something called the inciting incident. The inciting incident is the event that causes the chain of events that set up the upcoming call to adventure and begins the story. What's the inciting incident? It's not the gay kiss and it's not the bigot sandwich. It's Joel going missing. Joel's life is at stake. This matters to Ellie. Joel's death is the catalyst for the story in TLoU Part II, and so the inciting incident should lead to this catalyst. It also works here because of the themes of this story, which we're not ready to touch yet. No one cares that Ellie is gay or that the town has a bigot sandwich purveyor.
So, because Joel is missing, either he hasn't checking in yet, or he's late for returning from his job, or whatever, and a blizzard or storm is due to hit, this causes Ellie to change her routine and go to work with urgency. In fiction, heroes act. If the hero doesn't act, why is the story about them? When the need for action comes, the hero responds. Anyone who wants to subvert this does not need to justify it, they need to make it satisfying to the audience. Period. Moving on.
Now that Ellie's surrogate father is in danger, we get her to express her inner conflict. It's an expression, not a revelation. She hints at the inner conflict; she does not explain it. What's bothering Ellie? Here's one way she can suggest to the audience that there's a conflict. She can say "that liar is missing." Maybe she says it under her breath. Maybe she says it out loud. This reveals to the audience that she strongly doubts what Joel told her, and that it's bothering her a lot, and she's been coping with it.
SCENE 3
The Call to Adventure is when the hero actually has to answer the call. Ellie is given the opportunity to leave town in spite of the signs of danger. The takes it. Why? Because she's tough and kick ass, and she cares about Joel. Also, again, if Ellie's not going to do it, why would we tell the story from Ellie's point of view? Why wouldn't we pick another character?
We'll also introduce Dina in scene 3 as she's Ellie's sidekick / romantic interest for a significant portion of the story. We'll also show that a trap is being set for Ellie. What is the trap? In fiction, it means the hero is going to walk into a shit situation in the course of pursuing their goals, and this situation is going to be a significant event that she gets trapped in. We're setting it up and we're hinting at it. Drop a line that some strangers or foreigners have been spotted. This refers to Abbey and her crew. This is ominous and foreboding, and Ellie's going to disregard it because she's brave and she has to get her surrogate guitar dad home safe.
Notice that I'm not writing dialogue or breaking down the scenes down into moments or actions? I'm just structuring broadly. When writing, it's easy and find to deviate from the structure at bit, but a good structure helps to write.
SCENE 4
Develop the relationship Ellie has with her friends including Dina. Especially Dina. Don't interrupt the pacing with flashbacks and conversations about the gay kiss or the pregnancy or the bigot sandwiches. Sprinkle it in if you can fit it without ruining the pacing of your action or sense of urgency. Remember, we're writing people, not caricatures like Captain Ahab. Captain Ahab was a maniac and he didn't act like a real person. Ellie and Dina and that other handoms fellow are real people. They don't stop for drugs and sex in the middle of a search and rescue unless they intend to call it off temporarily and wait out the storm; otherwise, this creates unbelievable or unlikable characters. Seriously, no drugs when you're on a search and rescue. It's negligent.
Seriously, no. Change my mind. Get rid of the drugs and sex. Maintain the urgency for the sake of building tension. Keep the pacing of your action consistent or increase it. We can establish that Dina and Ellie have romantic or sexual tension in other ways. Maybe they're already girlfriends? Seriously, we're cutting the drugs and sex scene. Completely breaks the pacing. Completely boring. Moving on.
Ellie takes a risk and pushes on. "One more check point. One more check point. We can make one more checkpoint." "But the blizzard's coming!" "One more checkpoint, dammit!" And of course, Dina being the good side-kick, is loyal to the hero and follows her. Note that the difference between the hero and the sidekick here is that the hero in this story, Ellie, has personal stake in the success of the search and rescue, but the sidekick does not. Instead, the sidekick is simply loyal to the hero. Further, the hero is the one who acts when others don't. This establishes the dynamic of friendship, loyalty, and dedication if not romantic love between Ellie and Dina. Dina may not ordinarily risk this much, but she's doing it for Ellie.
SCENE 5
Reveal the hero's desire. Ellie loves Joel like a dad. We need to communicate this to the audience. Dina says once "I get it, he's like your dad." This is not clumsy dialogue. It's subtle. It says all you need to say. People who have good dads who live their dads will get it. Trust me.
Now, we do more foreshadowing of danger and bad stuff. Abbey and her friends have left some zombies and some footprints behind. There are signs of several people, and Ellie and Dina have the tracking ability to be able to discern this by the signs in the environment. You also want to use some environmental storytelling to show that there's more stuff going on than anything that just Joel and Tommy can do.
Ellie approaches the room where Joel is being beaten to death.
SCENE 6
Ellie has entered the room where Joel is being beaten by Abbey, and she promptly gets restrained. Dina too, why not? We are about to end Act I with a twist. Joel is murdered, but not by zombies or a storm. This is personal for Ellie who declares she'll kill the mystery killers, and this is the trap. The mysterious people all get nervous and finally say "the town will know we're here soon, it's time to go." Note that these characters have spared Ellie and Dina. That in and of itself suggests they are more complex than they seem, but we know that these people are in reality just trying to give the town less reason to come after them by doing less harm. That said, why wouldn't they kill Ellie and Dina to preserve their secrecy? Did they just assume Ellie wasn't a threat? Make a note of this for later, you're going to need to answer it for the audience with a clue or throw away line.
I've heard that the oldest law in the world is the law of retaliation. That is the law of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." Note that this law is not a mandate to retaliate, but a limitation on retaliation. If someone pokes out one eye, you cannot poke out two. The punishment must fit the crime. Joel has committed many questionable actions or crimes, but the crime he committed against Abbey was shooting and killing Abbey's dad. Abbey is the villain of the story because she has broken the law of retaliation by both torturing and then killing Joel. Abbey has taken justice for the crime against her father, but she's also committed a new injustice. Torture is a punishment that is disproportionate to Joel's crime against Abbey. And of course, two wrongs don't make a right. In addition, she and/or her friends also injured Tommy with a gunshot. I think I would show Abbey looking down at herself, bloodied, and show her face with a look of disgust and regret as if she realizes "what have I done?" This is of course because torturing and killing someone is surely a traumatic experience for a normal person, and for which Abbey may not have been prepared for. And like I said, we're writing relatable people, not Captain Ahab.
Now to establish the through line of story. Ellie is going to hunt down this mystery killer and she's going to get justice for Joel's murder. Ta-da. That's Scene 6.
WHAT ELSE?
If we established Abbey as this young woman who was moments ago running through the snow and getting rescued from zombies by Joel, we would take away the mysteriousness of her from the audience, and we would spoil the impression of her as a villain. Audiences like a good villain. Also, this has the effect of disconnecting Ellie from the Audience the audience knows things Ellie doesn't know. Ellie doesn't know Abbey is actually a dog lover who saves good people from bad people. Ellie hates Abbey, but we don't. Actually, that's not true, it's complicated. The audience hates Abbey but for reasons unrelated to the narrative.
We can always make Abbey a sympathetic villain later, but the idea of writing a story with deuteragonists who end up fighting in the finale and stopping short of death, that is avant-garde. I like avant-garde, but The Last of Us Part II is a poor example of avant-garde because it doesn't work. It doesn't create consistent tension or suspense. It doesn't have good pacing. There are a lot of good moments and also a lot of moments I'd like to skip even on a first play-through. It doesn't have good structure. One moment, Ellie and Abbey are pointing guns at each other, the next minute we're flashing back to Abbey in an aquarium with her boyfriend for six hours. That's what it felt like anyway. You had all this tension, then you broke it. Then you had to build tension back up again with characters I am not interested in, or not as interested in, or don't care about at all if you wrote them out of the story. The fact that the story tries to make Abbey a sympathetic second main character even though she killed the beloved protagonist from the first game is also a very big ask. The story might have been able to pull that off by bonding the audience to Abbey first, then Abbey kills Joel. And I mean really bonding the audience to Abbey. In that case, I would have told the story from Abbey's point of view from the very start, and ended Act I with Joel appearing, then Abby killing Joel, then Ellie shows up, and I would have done my best to make it a surprise.
The audience doesn't hate Abbey because Abbey killed Joel. The audience hates Abbey because this was not done in an emotionally satisfying way or narratively interesting way. Rather, it was done because the writer wanted it to happen, and he put in a bunch of other stuff for context because he was trying to be fair to all the characters. Too much context for too many perspectives all at once killed the chances for an emotional set up and pay off. Stick to one character's limited perspective! Also, we all feel that this decision to have Abbey kill Joel was done for shock value or for some message or theme, and that's not a satisfying reason to kill off a beloved character. People like art for the feels, not the themes. Prioritize the feels, not the themes. Also, I don't think the leaks mattered that much, but it definitely spoiled the game for first timers.
What have we lost? I cut the scene where Joel rescues Abbey. I think it's delightfully ironic for Joel to rescue his own murderer and thus give his murderer an opportunity to murder him, and I also think it's excellent for character development to show Joel doing good deeds. This suggests change, possible redemption, that the man is more complex than you might guess. I love the idea of this scene, but I do not want to change perspectives from Ellie to Joel or Abbey in the middle of Act I. Here's why. Ellie is the point of view character in LToU Part II. That's it. Anything that causes the point of view to change in the middle of these scenes has the potential effect of taking away from the audience's opportunity to bond with the point of view character. I can also cut this scene because it has no significance to the plot. because Abbey never expresses conflict or remorse for murdering the father-slayer who saved her life. I also love the thought that Joel made choices effecting the life or death of two members of one family and they were both complete strangers to him on both occasions. There's something oddly poetic that's being lost by cutting this, but a good writer needs to cut their darlings. This scene does not help the building of tension or the pacing.
