A retrospective look at the backlash and hate speech directed at the hit series, put into narrative perspective.
Advisory: the following content contains spoilers for The Last of Us: Part II and season 2 of its HBO TV adaptation.
In June 2020, seven years after the release of Naughty Dog‘s critically acclaimed The Last of Us, the studio released a second game set five years after the original story – the release caused an unprecedented wave of review-bombing.
Praised for its groundbreaking gameplay and graphics, The Last of Us: Part II sold over ten million copies (according to IGN) and brought the series to a total of 300 Game of the Year awards.
Yet Part II will also be remembered as a highly controversial title, one that continues to divide fans and spark debates to this day. The death of beloved former protagonist Joel in the early hours of the sequel, the non-chronological structure designed to make players empathise with Abby (Joel’s killer), and the overall length of the narrative all triggered waves of negative reactions.
However, these narrative disagreements alone cannot fully explain the major gap between audience and professional reviews on Metacritic at the time of release: a 3.3/10 user score compared to a 95% Metascore. A quick skim through the page reveals a darker truth: it is flooded with review bombing.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines review bombing as the flooding of a website with usually negative reviews, often targeting a product or business. Journalist Thomas Mitchell adds:
“While not always the case, review bombing often seems targeted at projects that champion minorities, whether women, people of colour, or the LGBTQIA+ community.”
Since release, the Metascore has slightly shifted to 93%, while the user score has risen to 5.9. Nevertheless, review bombing continues, with over 10,000 negative reviews on the platform, many containing homophobic and misogynistic remarks.
Example reviews:
User Luso74, on 18/08/2021
“Great graphics and gameplay, but horrible scenario and characters, too long, big woke propaganda. The first deserved better.” – 0/10
User Richy83, on 19/05/2021
“Great graphics but sadly ruined by A forced “woke” agenda Definitely a downgrade from the previous game And judging by the other userscores I can see people feel the same way” – 1/10
User Senna223, on 11/12/2020
“I dont live in USA to be ok with those bs political ideologies in my game.” – 0/10
User Dreddpool82, on 24/11/2020
“This game went woke and will probably be the last of it, as no one wants a part 3 after they **** over this it’s fans they way they did.” – 0/10
So what exactly is so punishable about The Last of Us: Part II? Critics accuse Naughty Dog of pushing an agenda, claiming the studio used the game to spread “liberal” or “woke propaganda.”
Yet these accusations collapse upon closer inspection.
The game is divided into two narrative perspectives: the player first follows Ellie, who seeks revenge for Joel’s death, and later Abby, the very person responsible for that killing. Within both narratives, LGBTQ+ representation serves a clear storytelling purpose, undermining the claim that it is merely “forced.”
In Ellie‘s storyline, the protagonist leaves her hometown of Jackson in search of Abby, accompanied by her friend Dina. The two gradually develop romantic feelings, begin a relationship, and eventually settle on a farm outside Jackson to raise a child together. While their relationship is not the central plot, it is essential to understanding Ellie’s emotional journey, as her romantic hopes ultimately clash with her obsessive desire for revenge.
Abby‘s storyline unfolds amid a violent conflict between a militia group known as the W.L.F. (or “Wolves”) and a religious cult called the Seraphites (or “Scars”). As Abby begins to question her identity, choices, and loyalty to the Wolves, she meets Lev, a young Seraphite who has been ostracised by his community for being transgender. Abby accepts Lev and ultimately protects him as they flee together. Once again, LGBTQ+ representation functions as a narrative device, shaping a story about identity, community, and isolation.
Beyond storytelling, such representation also allows the game to be more inclusive, making it meaningful to a wider audience. Inclusivity fosters belonging and visibility for marginalised groups, whereas propaganda manipulates audiences for ideological purposes. Equating the two is therefore misleading and, once again, rooted in discriminatory rhetoric.
It is also worth noting that The Last of Us: Part I already featured several LGBTQ+ characters.
- Ellie herself appears in the chapter Left Behind, which introduces Riley, her first love. The game makes no attempt to conceal their feelings for each other, culminating in a kiss and a promise to stay together in life and death after they become infected.
- Bill, another character from the first game, is an acquaintance of Joel who recently lost his partner, Frank. Joel, Ellie, and Bill discover Frank’s body hanging in a house while crossing the town, prompting Bill to reflect on their relationship. The car Bill later gives to Joel and Ellie even contains a hidden queer pornographic magazine tucked beneath a seat.
These earlier elements further undermine the argument that Naughty Dog suddenly “turned woke” with the second instalment.
Queer representation has always been part of the series’ narrative fabric and has contributed to making video games a more inclusive form of storytelling. Confusing inclusivity with propaganda reflects individual prejudice rather than any agenda on Naughty Dog’s part.
For that reason, the backlash and continued review bombing surrounding The Last of Us: Part II ultimately appear misguided and unjustified.
