If they nail it then this game could lead to some really interesting discussions about how violence in video games.
Apart from the greater emphasis on realism, I don't really expect it to lead to any new conversations or to push the medium forward in some way to be honest. Enemies having unique names that they use when communicating with each other or when mourning someone's death is certainly new (as far as I'm aware anyway) but games have tried to make you aware of the violence you're inflicting in various ways before, to varying levels of success, and I don't think this is much different from any of that. Rather, it's approaching the same idea from another angle - that of graphic, believable-looking violence upon realistically modelled and animated characters who act like humans, etc. - and that's fine; but I don't think it's necessarily going to lead to anything new in terms of how we look at violence in the medium. Like, it fits the context of the game and its theme more than other methods of making the player confront their actions would and is a logical step forward from the previous game's level of violence but I don't think it's inherently better or revolutionary on account of the way it aims to be as realistic as possible.
The conversation, I expect, will just be a continuation of that which has already taken place and be centred around the question of "is this going too far?" in regards to the research apparently involved (and its possible consequences upon their staff) but that question and the resulting discussions wouldn't really be anything new either - it'll just be the same ones but with a fresh coat of paint. I'm not saying I don't respect what Naughty Dog's doing or think they're wasting their time - far from it: I'm all for it and think it fits the artistic direction/vision of the game. But I also don't think it's a given that it's going to be some huge step forward for how video games portray violence in some way either or make players question what they're doing in a way they've never done before.
Personally speaking, I think games do a better job at this when they take an abstract approach to having the player face what they've done; force them to do something terrible to a person(s) they care about or have some sort of connection with; or have them explore their character's mind in some way, to see and feel the toll being taken on them. Ultimately games such as this are driven by the violence the player inflicts upon others and they contextualise this by having the enemies be the first to attack or paint them for the most part as irredeemable monsters in order to justify and continue the player's actions over the many hours of play. They don't usually directly address any of this, however, and if they do then only in cutscenes or through some other form of exposition. How TLoU Part 2 handles this, exactly, is what will be far more interesting in my opinion.
Like, I'm aware of the spoilers, having posted in the thread about them a few times, and so I know it follows through on some of what happened in the first game in a way that makes sense but it's how it contextualises the rest of the experience that will matter a lot more. All the attention in the world poured into making the game as realistic looking as possible and giving every enemy a name and recording lines for those names being cried out in anguish by other NPC's with names, etc. - none of that will make a difference if the game follows the same trodden pattern as many other first and third person shooters.
I guess my "concern" in this area arises with the cult-like group seen in some trailers and gameplay footage, who appear like they'll be recurring antagonists somehow. Sure, they love their dogs and each other and Ellie certainly dispatches them with a great degree of violence - but she also witnesses one of them gutting one of their own and in another trailer an Asian character, also apparently one of theirs, has her arms smashed with a hammer as they attempt to hang someone else. Not exactly innocent people making difficult decisions to survive is my point, which makes you wonder: how will the game deal with other groups? That's what I'm more interested in seeing.
Anyway, others have raised different points and equally interesting questions related to this, but that's my take. I don't expect it to be all that amazing or better than other approaches at doing the same thing but it would be nice to be surprised, I guess.
