These are the changes I want to see (and the ones I don’t)

This January is marked The Last of Us. The premiere of the HBO series is bringing video game fans and strangers closer to this post-apocalyptic world full of mutants, deaths, dramas on the surface and a father-daughter dynamic seen a thousand times, but just as beautiful. With the zombie fever again on the screen, I have stopped to think about the new The Last of Us multiplayerthe known as Factions 2. A standalone game and, we hope, free; but, above all, how this project will be.

The Last of Us Factions 2, how could it be?

Why am I getting into this quagmire? It is not that I do not want to rescue that first online mode, one that went unnoticed by many – even now, disappeared in the remake of The Last of Us Part 1. Still, I think we don’t need something known. In fact, without speaking in absolutes of any kind, I didn’t like that, experiment? We don’t need another Factions, at least not in form and substance, but much more tangential experiences and not so attached to rescuing the content of the single player mode and trying to give it a life of its own.

The Last of Us series isn't exactly the same as the game, but is that a bad thing?

A bit of Ubisoft, and a bit of Battlestate Games

Games like Escape from Tarkov or The Division can be good examples to follow in the face of a multiplayer as massive as the one that those from Santa Monica are looking for. In fact, the Ubisoft’s approach I find it very little questionable; much more than acceptable. That 2016 game, and its subsequent 2019 sequel, kept a minimal plot loophole, but enough to excuse the constant push and pull of the factions present in the game, and our commands all over the map.

Image from The Last Of Us Factions (Naughty Dog)

Even though Factions 2 doesn’t need a story mode per se, that narrative excuse “a la The Division” would fit perfectly. But what about Escape from Tarkov? I have left the long-term project of Battlestate Games for last because it seems to me the best mirror to look at in terms of gameplay, without going too realistic. We are even talking about a concept that can be extrapolated to the narrative of The Last of Us. A vast setting, online and maybe NPCs, but always with the threat of infection around every corner.

The Last of Us Factions 2 should not remain a battle royale, do not rent if you want to survive

We don’t have to face each other in 6v6 combat until the last one spills his blood; really not. The Last of Us is more than shooting, although like a good video game, it forces us to do so. It is a desolate, cold world, and where death is rampant; but also lacking in resources and basic needs. Do you know where I’m going? Although, along with the battle royale, this is one of the most hackneyed genres today, the hard core of its conception does not become alien to the game world of Naughty Dog. Although, in this case, the mix with The Division would tip the balance to cooperative vs. competitive.

whatbattle royale? I prefer to leave it out of the equation

Mentioned the battle royale, the sum of recent multiplayer -at least in the last five years-, I think that here I could differ with the opinion of some colleagues or, to the same degree, with yours. According to certain references on the net, concepts such as “the circle” or “the zone” have been mentioned as elements within this game.

Image from The Last Of Us Factions 2 (Naughty Dog)

Judging by the conceptual arts, the game would seek to delimit the experience in a gigantic San Francisco

I think The Last of Us Factions 2 should not get stuck in a battle royale, He does not rent if he wants to survive. At least not as the only modality, and yes as an anecdotal addition. Center the entire experience under that competitiveness, no matter how much personal survival The Last of Us has in its DNA. Genre is no longer synonymous with experimentation; it has settled, casualized, and few manage to get it out of that quagmire. For this reason, reducing Sony’s work to a BR seems to me like a missed opportunity.

Ubisoft signed its own "The Last of Us" just before Naughty Dog and lost out but had some great ideas

A free The Last of Us is not bad, nor is it harmful to the brand

The free game has long since ceased to be a commercial experiment with a view to “getting the money” from those players who never felt animosity for gambling. The free to play They are no longer synonymous with a minor and repetitive pastime. The dynamic of “wasting time” to level up is still present, but it is much more fun.

Free to play games are no longer synonymous with minor and repetitive pastimes

It may certainly sound weird. Fun? Yes, and it is that not all games are always. I mean, a video game is a mixed bag. The ingredients must be well measured. League of Legends, Fortnite, Warzone or Apex Legends have not survived the test of time just because they are addictive, but because are good. Regardless of your opinion towards them —always valid—, all their studies have known how to carry a millimeter control four important aspects: fun, challenge, reward Y invested time; and I don’t see why Naughty Dog can’t.