Talk:The Last of Us Part II

Audience and developer response

@SuperSalamander5434: In the interest of avoiding more edit warring, please feel free to voice your issues with the article's content here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

How is there no mention of the massive backlash against it? Countless streamers just dumping the game after the same event. The article makes it seem nobody has any issues with the title but that's just not the reality of the situation GreenPeanuts (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

There are five paragraphs solely dedicated to it. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Video Game Actors

I believe that as time progresses and videos games follow suit, more recognition needs to be given to the actors who portray these characters. Especially since nowadays the actors are not simply voicing the characters, but also performing motion capture. I think it would make more sense to include a "Cast" section on the Wikipedia page of recent, current, and future video games. I honestly feel like it's a disservice to those actors when this section is not included; almost as if they're barely even an afterthought in the production of a video game. These actors oftentimes end up working much harder in the making of a video game than others do in the making of a film; they should be recognized in the same way, if not more so. Dullahan7701 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Dullahan7701: FWIW, this article does actually name actors, namely in the § Plot section but also in § Development (and especially on the Characters and Development articles). Cast lists for video games are generally avoided per WP:VGSCOPE#11 but the Manual of Style is always open to change—if you'd like to start a discussion to seek consensus, I would strongly recommend doing so at WT:MOS:VG and/or WT:VG. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion of "record GOTY" awards in accolades section

@Rhain as stated, opening this here. I do believe that the changes to the accolade section I added are more accurate and still a summarisation of the information in the sources cited. At present it currently states the following:

The Last of Us Part II won 326 Game of the Year awards, which several outlets claimed broke the record set by The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (2015); it was later surpassed by Elden Ring (2022).

However I believe this has an unintentionally misleading implication in how it conveys the information of this claimed record, namely that it is the same source for the totals of all three titles and that it's some kind of authoritative source making it. The reality however is that the three cites for the initial comparison between TLOU2 and W3 all instead ascribe the claim to a now defunct unofficial tally website called GameAwards.Net, which appears to have gone offline at some point in the last couple of years and at last archiving did have a disclaimer stating it wasn't reliable for such a claim.

Meanwhile the two cites for comparing Elden Ring to TLOU2 in fact ascribe to a different tally compilated by ResetEra users.

Therefore I believe the new wording I attempted to introduce is a better reflection at summarising the actual contents of the sources cited, namely that they are ascribing the claims to another set of parties entirely and it is not those outlets themselves who are making the claims, as well as that the parties making those claims were two separate unofficial ones (and not say ascribing both claims to say Guinness Records or some form of industry body)

The Last of Us Part II won 326 Game of the Year awards, with several outlets reporting this surpassed that awarded to The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (2015) as documented by the unofficial aggregator GameAwards.net; it was later reportedly surpassed by Elden Ring (2022) according to tallies recorded by ResetEra users. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rhain also as to the statement of holding the record in the lead, this is me challenging the recent change to introduce that into the lead and believe it should be left at the more verifiable and limited stable version that had persisted for some months/years with the same sources which was to have some form of wording for the total number of awards but without mention of an ascribed unofficial record. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. I'm aware that the original record came from the defunct website, but the updated stat and record come from its successor, which features the same information anyway, so I think my restored mention of "online aggregators" covers the range of original sources sufficiently. I see no reason to revert the lead to the earlier version; the current one reflects the articles and sources accurately. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the new wording, while better, still could be improved. How about:

The Last of Us Part II won at least 326 Game of the Year awards, according to various unofficial online aggregators, which several outlets reported broke the record set by The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (2015); it was later surpassed by Elden Ring (2022).

I think this would better convey that these are unofficial tallies that only document those awards found and that it's not "apples to apples" so to speak.

Regarding the lead out of the two versions, I believe the old core of not mentioning it in the lead is at least more accurate to what is verified than a definitive sounding one mentioning a record that also doesn't encapsulate that it's not a current ascribed record.

How about a compromise, "including more than 320 Game of the Year awards, which was suggested by some to be a then record"?

Better reflects the actual nature of paragraph in question I'd argue on multiple grounds (it's a former not current record, and that it wasn't "official" one, as well as that we can't really be sure just how many awards it got). Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the word "unofficial" is meant to serve; it implies there is somehow an "official" tally, which is obviously not the case. Several reliable sources authoritatively reported on the information, so I don't think it's necessary for us to describe the original aggregators like that. And, FWIW, that they only document the "awards found" is not particularly unique or disqualifying, as that's how aggregators usually work.

was suggested by some seems like an unnecessary clarifier in the lead and feels a little too close to "allegedly" in expressing doubt. I agree the lead inaccurately implied that the record was current, though, so I've rephrased. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

which is obviously not the case

But that's obvious to you and me having looked into the sources, it wouldn't necessarily be obvious to a lay-reader when we have various media aggregators that are official or viewed as such (box office Mojo for instance). We have charts companies for film and music for instance that have some sort of "industry-standard" label/body attached, so if anything the assumption could reasonably be the opposite (that a statement of being a "record" would obviously be backed by a reliable statistics authority) . Meanwhile these projects in the sources are ascribed as being fan-led projects, so we should be clear about that (maybe "fan" is better than "unofficial"). And the reliable sources we've cited do also carry qualifiers. For instance the two cites for the Elden Ring claim both explicitly refer to it coming from a ResetEra project.

If your issue is that you think this single word is unnecessary rather than inaccurate, I don't think it's unreasonable if we add it because it makes it explicitly obvious rather than implied.

As to the lead wording If suggested is too close to allegedly what about "possible", "proposed", or "claimed"? It's not suggesting they're wrong, just that I don't think the sourcing is good enough given its unofficial nature to be said in WP:WIKIVOICE without qualification. (e.g. "including a proposed by some then-record 326 Game of the Year awards").Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

To add to the point on aggregators, I think there's also usefulness in separating out the "GOTY awards" aggregators as different to the ones mentioned in the pair of review score infoboxes above it. It could be worth considering that if someone is reading the article top to bottom then the first mention of aggregators would be the latter ones (Metacritic and Open Critic) and without clarification is there potential for someone to then get to accolades and then assume we're referring to those same aggregators? Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

My point is just that there are no "official" aggregators; Box Office Mojo is reputable but it's not "official". I understand your interest in clarifying, but "unofficial" is not the right word—nor is "fan", in my opinion, as none of the sources describe it that way. On that note, they seem to mostly describe it as a "tracker", so I've rephrased to clarify.

I don't think words like "proposed" are much better in the lead either, as they still express doubt. As I said, the information is authoritatively reported by reliable sources, so the phrasing seems like an appropriate summary to me (with more specific information and attribution within the article). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

With the lead then, if you don't believe there's a suitable qualifier to highlight the limited establishment of such a claim then I think it should be removed completely and go back to the old long-standing format of not mentioning the claimed record as it was before it was introduced last month as a bold change by yourself that's now been challenged. If there was better sourcing for the figure itself according to some industry-standard statistics site then I would think it was acceptable for inclusion in the lead, but given the far less than that data source behind it (GamesRadar refer to it as run by ResetEra users) then it's an extraordinary claim as it's currently presented and without the level of sourcing to support it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The information is sourced to multiple of our most reliable sources, which is more than acceptable per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. We don't cite the tracker itself as it is not a secondary source, but we do cite several independent secondary sources known for fact-checking, which is required per WP:SOURCE, so the current phrasing is appropriate. All information in the lead is a summary, with proper attribution within the article; this is no different. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

It is sourced to multiple RS who put qualifiers on it and do not "authoritatively" report it as you suggest. They all ascribe the claim to someone else.

That's according to tracking site Game Awards, which reports that the post-apocalyptic title boasts a whopping 261 top nods from 2020.

The Last of Us 2 has won the most awards of any game so far according to a game of the year tracker.

According to Game Awards, a site which tracks both media outlet awards and reader's choice awards, The Last of Us: Part II has surpassed CD Projekt Red's genre-defining RPG.

That's according to dedicated ResetEra researchers

Elden Ring has apparently topped The Last of Us: Part II as the most Game of the Year-awarded game ever. This is according to an in-depth study on ResetEra

Now in an attempt to reach a consensus for including the claim in the lead I have offered to compromise on including a qualifier given that all claims are being ascribed to fan-compiled trackers and not an authoritative body but you are not willing to accept several offered. Given the impasse I'm going to restore the pre-dispute wording as per WP:ONUS as clearly containing the reference to a GOTY record without a qualifier does not have consensus at this time (you boldly introduced it recently after a years long period of not including it despite active editing of the page, and my very next edit challenged it). Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with you here @Rambling Rambler: the claim isn't from Game Awards (see Archived); they just aggregated raw data.

Instead, multiple WP:RS took that data and independently determined the record was broken – they attribute the aggregated data to Game Awards, but the actual claim of a record is entirely their own reporting.

I'm supportive of @Rhain's version here. Nil🥝 00:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Instead, multiple WP:RS took that data and independently determined the record was broken – they attribute the aggregated data to Game Awards, but the actual claim of a record is entirely their own reporting

The thing I keep coming back to on this @Nil NZ is that if that's the case... why do they all instead word it that it was the aggregator making the claim and not themselves ("according to")? If you look via Wayback Machine at Game Awards for Jan 26 2021 (the date the pieces went live) it contains this page that ranks the "Top 10 Most Awarded Titles", with a total of 260 for Witcher 3 while the main page logged that day shows TLOU2 had 261. This page was then updated with TLOU2 appearing before being replaced by June with a disclaimer page that actively distanced itself from the claims being ascribed to the site with a pretty strong wording.

As such, the "totals" for any year can only show you the minimum amount of awards that a particular game received, not the exact number, and they certainly cannot be used to compare games from different years in such precise detail. There could be five awards missing, or there could be fifty—no one can know for certain. Any site attempting to claim otherwise is trying to mislead you. (bold and underlining added for emphasis)

So those sources didn't themselves look into the data and then make their own claims based on that data, instead all of them maintain a tabloid-esque firewall where they present the claim they explicitly ascribe to the website with little scrutiny (Games Radar's piece even doubly distances themselves from the claim by attributing it to a reddit post that attributes it to Game Awards) which the website then later retracted.

This process then seems to have been repeated a few years later by the same publications when it comes to Elden Ring, with both sources simply repeating what was said on a ResetEra forum thread (and its tool) again with the same presentation of "this is what the website says" and not in their own publication's voice.

So yes, we do have pieces published in typically reliable sources but all those pieces carefully word their claims so that they're not the ones making the claims but reporting claims by third parties, and therefore we should add the appropriate qualifiers to clarify that they're merely reporting what they attribute to other sites in the same way we'd qualify reporting in mainstream newspapers when they're reporting what someone else said as being the words of that third-party and not their own words. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Science Forward HON 223

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 October 2025 and 24 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kateryna.Taranenko (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mattvenditti2 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)