Should you play The Last Of Us before watching the HBO show? Or vice versa?
There’s a short answer and a long one to the question of which version of The Last Of Us you should experience first, depending on your personal taste
TV Features HBO
Viewers who got their first taste of The Last Of Us during the series premiere on HBO this past Sunday night discovered what the game’s players have known for years—a good story told well can translate into any medium. We’re used to seeing prestige adaptations of novels, even comic books, but there’s never really been a show based on a video game that’s felt so—for lack of a better word—elevated. As with any adaptation, it’s worth asking the question: “Do I need to be familiar with the source material to fully appreciate the show?”
The short answer, in this case, is no, you don’t. The Last Of Us works as a TV series on its own merit, without any prior knowledge of the game. It has a clear narrative arc, compelling characters, thoughtful worldbuilding, and striking visuals that stick with you. The game has all of that too, and under the supervision of co-showrunner Neil Druckmann, the writer and creative director of the game, it hews pretty closely to the original’s acclaimed storytelling. You could sit down and watch all nine episodes of the HBO series and never feel like you’re missing out on anything from the game.
There’s a more nuanced answer to the question, though. It depends on how you prefer to consume this kind of content. Are you the type of person who likes to be immersed in a world, or would you rather just turn off your brain and enjoy it without an added layer of significance? Do you tend to get lost in the details? Do you get FOMO from shout-outs and Easter eggs aimed at fans with knowledge of the lore? Are you a serious gamer or are you more like HBO CEO Casey Bloys, who admitted in a now-infamous interview with The Hollywood Reporter that the last video game he played was Smurf: Rescue In Gargamel’s Castle on ColecoVision? Each viewer will have to answer those questions for themselves.
One story, two different ways to experience it
If you’re a gamer who somehow missed out on the first 2013 release or the many subsequent re-releases and remasters since then, The Last of Us is an easy recommendation. You should definitely get on that, but maybe not right away. Playing the game will essentially spoil the entire first season of the show for you. Sure, that goes both ways, but there may be more value added if you watch the show first and then go back and play the game. While there have been some changes made for the series, they’re not major or particularly consequential to the overall story. The series gives you the full narrative from the game pretty much intact, with some references but few surprises. The game, on the other hand, lets you sink deeper into the story with interactive elements like fighting, puzzle solving, crafting, and scavenging.
One of the features that sets the game apart is its vast trove of artifacts and collectibles scattered throughout the various locations you visit. Some are hidden in out-of-the-way places, others are just sitting out in the open, but they all add some depth to the world. You might come across a map, an informational pamphlet, a page from a diary, a revealing checklist, the code to a safe, or a hand-written note from a long-gone survivor to a loved one. There’s a series of comic books to collect for Ellie, and Firefly pendants with names and serial numbers (and sometimes bullet holes). Each item gives you a glimpse into the lives of people you may never meet in the game. Finding them is like a mini-game within the game, a story within a story. It’s something that can’t really be replicated on television. We’re not saying that the HBO adaptation doesn’t add anything to the story of The Last Of Us, it’s just that the game adds so much more.
Another thing you won’t get from the show, obviously, is interactive combat. There’s plenty of it in the game. There’s also a lot of sneaking around, ducking behind objects, and throwing bottles and bricks to distract the bad guys (human and otherwise). It’s often left up to you whether you want to go the stealth route or the violence route (though some violence can’t be avoided). Those choices give you the feeling of control, like you’re writing the story as you go along. That feeling only increases as you find new, more powerful weapons and improve them through the crafting system. It’s a bit of an illusion, as your path through the game is pre-determined and you have limited options if you want to progress, but it’s still a unique experience that isn’t ruined by knowing where you’re headed.
If none of this sounds appealing to you, it’s perfectly fine to watch the show and leave it at that. Mazin and Druckmann have taken that into account and nothing important is left out. The level of detail in the plot and setting is about what you’d expect for a prestige show, and it helps that they had a strong foundation to build upon. Either way, you’re in for a satisfying viewing experience.
48 Comments
No point doing both. The game’s already a TV show that makes you do a bunch of busywork before you get to watch the next bit, playing the game and then watching the show would be wildly redundant.
Exactly. It was a great story, but a mediocre game that people played mostly to get to the next cut scene.
This leans into a suggestion that the show will make the game obsolete, and I don’t think I’m on board with that. The cutscenes are great, but I found a lot of value in the playable parts too. As the article hints, there’s something about existing in that world, rather than just passively watching it, that’s engaging (at least for me).
to me its the opposite, the game makes the show unneccesary
Yeah, it’s one of the most popular games in history, but no one really wanted to play it.
I’m always going to recommend playing it for those who are gamers and may have missed out. There are so few titles of that quality that are out there worth experiencing. But I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who doesn’t play videogames at all. They can just watch the show.
There is a point if you’re a gamer and you also enjoy television shows. Experiencing one medium, does not eliminate the possibility of enjoying the story in another. I’m a book reader, but you best believe I’ll watch an adaptation of the the book as well.
on the other hand you can avoid having to hear anna torv trip over the american accent ten times per episode, though she (spoiler) won’t be around long
As someone who missed out on the 2013 release and the 2014 remaster (I had an Xbox 360 and an Xbox one before making the jump to PS4 and then PS5 in 2019) I had debated this because I didn’t know if by watching the show if I would be missing anything. I ultimately decided against it, mainly because I got a massive backlog and as a college student I don’t have a lot of free time. But after seeing the pilot episode, I’m probably going to go through now and work my way through the game. If the game is as good as most people say it is, then I am definitely excited to try it. After all, I liked Naughty Dog’s previous work on the Crash Bandicoot series and the Jak and Dexter series (never played Uncharted though) so I got faith in them
as a college student I don’t have a lot of free time.Oh man. Buddy. I have some bad news about being an adult.
lol I was about to say “wait til you have kids”
College is the last time in life you have free time.
There are events towards the end that are enhanced by embodying the characters
I think its weird to not mention that a big part of Last of Us (the video game) was its meta-commentary of video games generally. Joel’s arc was specifically meant to be a subversion of the typical role of video game protagonist/playable characters as wish-fulfillment/player stand-ins. The game wants you to get to the end and realize you weren’t playing “zombie simulator gruff dad simulator,” but instead playing as a unique character with their own arc apart from your wish fulfillment (i think it would help to be more specific but i dont want to get into spoilers). Certainly the story is good on its own merits without the added meta-commentary about video games, and I’m glad more people are getting to experience it who wouldn’t otherwise. Also I think Mazin and Druckmann are probably good enough to add something else to the television version to make up for the loss, though obviously I can’t be sure of that until the series completes. But regardless, I think the loss of the meta-commentary is certainly the strongest reason for playing the game over watching the show. Its certainly more impactful than “you’ll miss easter eggs.”
It was a mid game that nerds got really into and then threw a tantrum in the sequel because it took a different turn and added queer characters. The show is a essentially the cutscenes. do both it will always be mediocre either way
I never really heard complaints about queer characters. That was all fine to me.TL;DR: TLoU2 is a complicated game to talk about, but I don’t think they handled that “different turn” all to well. I’m also bored and feel like writing. ***SPILER ALERT*** Joel getting killed off so gruesomely (beaten with a golf club and spit on) as Ellie helplessly watches… wasn’t handled properly with how the game proceeds. Now, I watch Game of Thrones and have accustomed myself to many other tragedies, so losing a main character isn’t all too horrible of a thing in my mind… It just depends on how they handle it.In the sequel’s following plot structure, I personally think they handled it poorly. Joel is killed by a character that we don’t know (yet) and have have no sympathy for—essentially painting them as a new primary antagonist right off the bat. These “bad guys” pistol whip Tommy half to death, even though he didn’t do anything to these people, and then beat Ellie quite extensively as she’s helplessly pinned down. [Cut To Opening Credits] With all that happened, the game is basically setup a new pack of villains as if it’s trying to make a revenge arc for Ellie. However, that whole notion gets pulled out from under the players who then have to play through sections of the game where they despise what’s happening—making the overall story far more convoluted with less of a focus on surviving the onslaught of horrifying monsters in the world. That’s where TLoU2 was fucked up the most… The game proceeds with a sizeable section of gameplay where you control Joel’s killer, Abby, as they go through a weird redemption / anti-revenge arc that tries really hard to make them a sympathetic protagonist—as if killing of Joel is justified. That’s more than just a “different turn” as you put it. Abby commits an unforgivable sin in the eyes of the players: killing someone that they respect and spent a lot of time with. Then we have to play as Abby so that we can feel the weight of her decision, followed by sections that made Ellie out to be a vindictive murderer. The attempt to humanize all villains by refocusing the game and narrative away from the monsters and the infected world—to then hone in on the complexities of humanity and our violent emotions… it all just comes off as a preachy essay or a TED Talk. [Reminder: This is a survival 3rd person shooter video game where the fun parts are killing people.] The game could have earned those moments by giving the players some manner of choices, but instead, we’re setup to move forward, kill people that are trying to kill us, feel bad about killing those people, face those consequences horribly, explore the other side of our actions, sympathize with the villains, and determine for ourselves what moral ground we should take based on the actions that the game developers forced us to play through. It could have worked a lot better if the only choice we got to make wasn’t whether or not Abby should die in the end.It was too easy for me: Kill Abby and get justice for Joel. Abby’s dad was part of the Fireflies, a noted terrorist group, and was basically going to kill Ellie to get the cure from her at any cost, which Joel obviously wouldn’t be onboard with. Abby then chose to kill Joel for killing her dad, even though Joel killing the doctor to save Ellie is a no brainer. Abby being all “Oh, I’d be okay with it…” is just an asinine point since Ellie isn’t being given a choice, and therefore Abby becomes an enabler of child murder.There’s an argument to be made that Joel’s actions from the first game (which weren’t choices made by the players) made him deserve this death in some way… But as we know, the man lost his own daughter quite tragically, and wasn’t going to let Ellie die on some surgery table—especially when they didn’t give Ellie a choice. The constant humanization of the villains is undercut by the fact that they themselves have all been brutally terrible people… The killing of Joel sets up Abby as a villain that deservedly needs to die for her actions, which would have been fine (if a bit predictable), but the game still forces you to go through a whole arc that tries to make you reconsider killing her because the murder of Joel was justified in her mind. As a comparison, all I can think of right now is Black Panther 2 which tried to sell the same story: humanize a villain that murders your family and is somehow spared with a peace-loving message that “Revenger is bad, mmmkay?” That’s also just as predictable, IMO, but also a lot harder to do, and more often than not… people don’t handle it well. In the case of TLoU2, it’s apparent that a good number of people didn’t think the game handled some of these problematic aspects of the narrative, which is why the game is so polarizing. Had the game handled this well enough, we wouldn’t be here talking about it this way… the game would have been highly well received just like the first one.
Being familiar with the game can make one appreciate just how much the show is getting right. And their Easter egg game is on point. But I wouldn’t say its necessary.
Game first…. An integral part of the combat is protecting Ellie and each other. That ending really sings then vs in the show especially as its not something ever done in a games medium (AFAIK)
It’s kind of common sense. To each their own. Those who don’t care to play the video games, just watch youtube videos about the game if you’re curious. Give it a couple of weeks you’ll see new uploads detailing the differences between the game and the show. If you don’t mind watching shows and playing games, then you can play it simultaneously through the season. Or play it after the season. Or play it first, then catch up on episodes later. But if you’re someone that can’t do a game with mediocre gameplay, at least 15 hours of a bleak depressing good story, and the additional 9 hours of the same bleak depressing story with some alterations being retold on a weekly basis…then choose one or choose neither. Liquor, a hammer, and a box of shotgun shells will lighten the mood after seeing/playing the ending.
A bit of a weird article as this is common sense. An adaptation should not require having seen or played the original. If it does, that sounds like a serious issue on the adaptations’ part.
I think you’re right for the most part, but have you ever seen an adaptation that works more as a companion to the original? Something like Cronenberg’s Naked Lunch, where he adapts elements of Burroughs’ real life into the story. It’s interesting if you’re familiar with the book, because it turns it on its head.
Yeah, okay I see what you mean. I haven’t read Naked Lunch because I found the movie pretty densely surreal. Not sure how that would translate on the page but now I’m definitely intrigued. Been into more challenging reads in recent years.
I still think an adaptation that’s different than the source material shouldn’t also require the source to be read/watched. It should still stand on it’s own.
The book is very different from the film.I agree with you that most adaptations should stand alone, but there are a very rare few that work as almost a video essay about the book.
Someone tell this to the people behind every live action Resident Evil project.
We went from a director’s girlfriend/wife-by-the-sequel insert, to a reboot that just seemed to give up entirely after the character introductions, to a quickly canceled Netflix show where all the main characters were apparently brilliant people who could never make smart decisions thanks to some of the worst writing.
Welcome to Raccoon City at least tried to be an actual adaptation rather than someone’s self-insert fanfic. The Netflix adaptation just seemed to forget that Resident Evil protagonists were supposed to be likeable and competent.
For myself, I wish I watched the show first because the budget and execution doesn’t convince me it’s an existing world with real people as the game did. It feels like it’s only hitting the essential beats of the game and everyone is in cosplay. I feel like I wouldn’t be numb to the show if I’ve seen it first but it seems everyone is enjoying it so that’s honestly good to hear. If you watch the show first and then play the game I imagine it would feel like a directors cut of the show. More “fun” in that world.
I am one of those people that thinks sometimes, maybe most times, it can be BETTER to go in blind. IF you go in having played the game or read the book, I am not specifically talking about TLOU, you have your own preset biases and expectations. If you go in blind you get to see it with fresh eyes,
No need to consume both, IMO. TLoU was a great game in the day, but it didn’t hold up for me on a revisit.
Should you play The Last Of Us before watching the HBO show?
Well, that depends. Do you have a PlayStation 4 or 5? If not, then you have no other option, the show is the only thing you’ve got.
Smurf: Rescue In Gargamel’s Castle on ColecoVision is such an epic callback that I sincerely hope that it is true. That game was tight. I was the only person on my street or in my friend group with a ColecoVision, as my parents were too cheap to by the 2600 and not cool enough to grab me Intellivision. Still and all, I did have the greatest home version of Donkey Kong available at the time.
No. Or vice versa: on.
Just watch the game. No commentary remastered version.
one story, two different ways to experience every boring cliche!
A better title for this article would have been “Here’s a pointless opinion piece hoping to capitalize on the success of TLOU with a lot of clicks”.
I plan on neither watching nor playing. Thanks for reading my comment, which is more interesting than this dry fart of an “article”
How many episodes are devoted to hiding and listening through walls? Because that’s what I remember from the game. Does the cast crouch the entire time?
Are these are only two options?
For part II, this is a no brainer, you need to play the game first !Otherwise, the whole emotional experience – which is the whole point of that game – is completely ruined !
I wasn’t aware of he game and I enjoyed the first episode of this show. However it intrigued to look into the game. Once I learned that there were spores in the game and not the show and since spores are such an insanely fungus-specific thing (it’s how fungus reproduces) I’m no longer interested in watching this show.
Idk if it’s COVID tensions about having the characters in facemasks or some deal that Pedro Pascal has made cuz he’s triggered from Mandalorian but I think it’s stupid and I don’t want to watch this tendrils bullshit anymore. I saw some great commentary last week about how due to the lack of spores suddenly it’s like someone just pushes a button and then apocalypse started. How would Mrs. Adler be infected and not know about it if it’s tendrils? It’s already a fantastical premise but they literally just cut out the only teensy bit of logic that made it any different than The Walking Dead. I’m frustrated cuz it feels like viewing options have been scarce since the holiday and I was really looking toward this to fill up my first time slot of the year.
I’ve heard there’s some big moment in the game where Ellie reveals she can breathe the spores…… is she gonna like eat tendrils now instead? tf. I feel like watching this would be a really diminished way of experiencing what I heard is a great story, unfortunately I don’t own a PS3 so this will never be for me to enjoy. Alak.
They explain in the post-episode behind-the-scenes why they removed spores, and it makes sense. Spores would be, literally, everywhere. They work as a mechanic in the game to add variety to encounters. But they’ve totally sold the network of the fungi in the second episode, and it works. Also, apparently tendrils were in the original build of the game. But they couldn’t get the AI to function properly. And as you play 95% of the game with an NPC companion, they found you’d be in scenarios where the tendrils would take your NPC ally and you’d have to break them out. And in some of the more stealth-driven sections of the game, this constant freeing of your companion totally broke immersion. How would Mrs. Adler be infected and not know about it if it’s tendrils?Because it’s in the food supply. That’s why no one knew. Jakarta, Indonesia, is home to the world’s largest flour processing facility. They hammered this home in the first episode. Them not having pancakes in the morning. Joel refusing the biscuits Mr. Adler made. Sarah refusing the cookies because they were raisin. And then Joel forgetting to buy the cake. So the fungus is in the flour, and that’s what starts the outbreak. In the game, the outbreak also happened from the food supply, but it was specifically South America … and it was corn, chocolate and coffee if I recall. So they basically took exactly how it happened in the game, but moved it to a different location. You’re nitpicking a tiny facet and extrapolating it to the series.
In the game you’re walking around and suddenly Joel says “spores” and you put your mask on. Two seconds earlier he was only a couple of feet away from where he is now and the spores weren’t an issue, but suddenly there are spores and masks are necessary.Same thing with leaving a spore area. Joel walks a few feet and says “Ok, it’s all right now” and takes his mask off.In the game the spores are very localized, when they should be constantly expanding. Nowhere should be safe. Unless the Quarantine Zones are hermetically sealed they would all be infected by spores just floating through the air.It works in the game, but would not make sense in this show.
That’s the most ridiculous reason to not watch a show. Really? Tendrils instead of spores? Oh, my suspension of disbelief is ruined! Sad.
I literally just finished a Biology class and I was like “oh that’s a cool idea fungal instead of viral” but as soon as I realized there wasn’t gonna be spores in the TV show it was like “fuck this Im out”.
i think its better if you havent played the game. i played the game, zero interest in the show.
It would be cool if they re-released it as a multiplatformer. I’m just never gonna own a Play Station so unless they bring it over to Nintendo this just isn’t a story I’m ever going to get to experience.
Before anyone laughs they’ve actually brought a lot of stuff over to Nintendo like Skyrim. I had a blast replaying the re-release of Diablo II for the Nintendo Switch. They do it sometimes.
It’s a Playstation exclusive. It’s not going to be on Ninetendo or other platforms.Plus there’s thing thing called YouTube where you can watch someone play the game if you don’t have a Playstation. So it is possible for non-Playstation people to experience this game.
I’d recommend not playing the game until the season is over. The game is the game, and the show is the show. And the game can/might spoil things for you that will reveal in the show. I played the game twice eons ago, but I’ve forgotten it enough. So while I remember major plot points, there are enough minor steps along the way I’ve forgotten about, so the show feels fresh. Like, I totally forgot how Tess died.