The Last of Us

Who said anything about it being bad? I certainly didn't. Just saying something is geared to winning a lot of critical acclaim doesn't mean I think it's bad. I just think the game is So Okay, It's Average, but also acknowledge that other people feel differently.

Loved the game. There's just so little "bullshit" compared to most zombie titles. No "go fetch this for me" or "oh crap, she made it, but I have to take the long way around" segments. Well, a few, but none that were staggering. The only cliche I noticed was "the black characters getting killed off to induce drama", and even that wasn't so bad, with Henry actually betraying you and coming back. I kept waiting for him to get killed off by something stupid, but nah.

Dislike the idea of a film. Could it be done, sure. Does it need to be?

Have to shrug at the idea of a remastered version. Makes me feel like a schmuck for buying the PS 3 version just so I can hear about how much better-looking the PS 4 version is. The trailer certainly doesn't say as much. There's going to come a point when video games simply can't look any crisper and we'll just have to resort to either The Hunger Games or virtual reality kits to deepen the immersion.

GameSpot slams The Last of Us story in Remaster review

Not exactly.

See, this is where we have what I call 'Stylization vs. Realism'. Most video games these days either try to be as realistic looking as possible (Call of Duty, WATCH_DOGS), or they build their own colorful Art Style.

Generally, I think its almost always better to develop your own art style. Games with their own art style have a much easier to recognize identity; Compare Psychonauts to deBlob or Alice: Madness Returns to Telltale's The Walking Dead, and you'll easily figure out which is which where between Battlefield and Call of Duty, you may not be able to determine the difference at a glance.

Also, games that have stylization tend to age better compared to games that are as realistic as possible; We can see the graphical failings of Alan Wake or Call of Duty and it may remove us from the immersion, while a game like the Second Tomb Raider series or Tem Fortress 2, the graphical limitations are hidden behind stylization (mostly) and even can be part of the charm.

Also, if graphics keep getting more and more realistic, we'll eventually hit a point where we can't get any more so realistic and, logically, the games will look incredibly similar. Where as the stylization route has infinite possibilities.

Also, I find going to a game because it looks as realistic as possible to be stupid. "Wow. Its realistic dirt! I can see the exact same thing if I go outside. How interesting."

Is there a trope for this? There probably should be.

edited 28th Jul '14 4:07:22 PM by lancesolous13

Sliding Scale of Shiny Versus Gritty

edited 28th Jul '14 4:15:04 PM by VeryMelon

I would say that that trope almost applies. Mostly because, in video games, Gritty doesn't always mean realistic. And same goes with 'shiny'.

I mean, it makes sense where a movie with live actors, everything will tend to look 'realistic' in terms of actually believing a place could actually exist as it is in the films because its actual sets. Unless its a horribly CGI'd movie, but, even then, movies with live actors tend to try to make things look as 'real' as possible even if its all CGI (The Great Gatsby, Any Michael Bay movie ever).

But the worlds of animation and video games can go almost anywhere from realistic (Toy Story, Nine) to stylized (The Lorax, The Book of Life, the Incredibles), or somewhere in-between (Ratatoulie, Wreck-It Ralph deliberately did so for its cross-game art styles).

I think there's certainly some overlap there, but a chair in reality will typically have the same proportions as any other chair, while a chair in a video game could be wildly illogical in design and proportions, or even the people USING the chair can have absurd proportions and it'd be consistent with everything else.

I'm not sure if I'm using the right language since I have a headache at the moment, but please inform me if I'm making a fool of myself.

That Game Spot review didn't slam TLOU as so much take the ignorant viewpoint that those who kill others are incapable of love.

lol

http://www.twitch.tv/playstation The live play is on.

I hardly think an 8/10 is slamming it. It lower score is I think a reflection on the fact the game is a release on older last gen production.

Of course I don't think the criticisms of the two leads being to murderous to be likeable is that unreasonable. You and I are both able to rationalise and accept their dualism but that doesn't mean the average player can.

edited 31st Jul '14 12:00:49 AM by joeyjojo

I do. Considering how many video games feature murderous protagonists (i.e. Well over 50% of games), its feels slightly like a stupid thing to harp on. Video Game Protagonists tend to kill a lot of things; humans, animals, or supernatural!creatures/forces because that's how gameplay works in most games; combative play.

Now, I personally would say that games should just balance the scales a bit and make every bullet shot/life taken be more meaningful, but they'd still be murderers.

On top of that, this is a Zombie Apocalypse game, NO ONE has clean hands and any one who somehow doesn't probably didn't last long or won't for much longer. Complaining about your protags being killers in a Zombie movie is like complaining that people die in a horror movie or that there's magic/elves/dwarfs involved in Fantasy media.

I know it's really a YMMV thing, but I admit it sorta annoys me when people talk about Joel and Ellie like they're a pair of bloodthirsty sociopaths. They don't go out of their way to spread mayhem and carnage. Yes, they kill a lot of people, but like Lance said, this is a video game. And of the all people they kill, almost every single one is actively trying to kill them at the moment.

That's not to say that they're saints - far from it. But moral ambiguity is also a big part of the plot. All of the darker actions they take over the course of the game are portrayed in a very grim light, and greatly contribute to the atmosphere of just what a Crapsack World it is.

The woman who wrote that article was fired today or yesterday.

Maybe this is where the whole Watsonian versus Doylist thing comes into play. Sure, the Watsonian (or in-universe) reasoning makes sense, but think about the Doylist (or out-of-universe) reasons for writing them that way in the first place. Nothing was stopping them from creating a Crapsack World where it's possible to get out of certain situations in a non-violent manner. Nothing except perhaps their own limitations or their own thoughts of how it could work.

for giving a bad review?

Yep. A lot of people took a issue with the ultra violence in the game. While there may be perfectly rational logical reasons for the characters actions that still doesn't mean player can stomach watching and actively taking part in them.

If an element in a product of entertainment detracts from the over enjoyment of said work I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that a negative even if that element does make sense context of the story.

edited 31st Jul '14 5:39:46 PM by joeyjojo

Fair point, but I suppose there's also the element of what the product's intended audience is. I mean, Telltale's The Walking Dead covers the setting in a way the provides more non-violent options.

However, assuming that the entire game was full of non-violent solutions instead of combat, then is it really The Last of Us anymore? At least in terms of gameplay? Because the gameplay LARGELY is sneaking past/killing zombies and other opponents.

If you got rid of the combat and the game was just 'Get from Point A to Point B', you might as well make it a movie while you're at it.

Once again, I feel like its complaining about something which is simply a large part of the setting/genre of the game. Its like going into a Disney Movie and complaining that there wasn't any sex and gore. Or complaining when a work of Si-Fi uses Futuristic Technology. Sure, theoretically, the work could incorporate or remove those elements, but they've become so integral to the genre that its stupid and not worth it to complain about their existence or lack-there-of.

I never said that I wanted the entire game to be filled with non-violent solutions. I said "certain" situations, like I don't mind if the game forces me into a firefight or some other combat scenario sometimes, but every other time could have at least provided some alternate solutions other than "bash the other guy's face in." I don't actually want to completely get rid of the combat, but rather I'd be more interested in seeing a bit more gameplay outside of combat that contributes to the setting in its own way. Explore a bit, sneak around enemy lines, etc. Again, I understand it's a survival action game set in a Crapsack World and some violence and brutality is expected, but that doesn't mean every single interaction has to be violent.

Also, the person being fired after that review was likely a coincidence, because there were 5 other people that got fired at the same time from the site and none of them knew they were gonna get fired for any reason.

edited 2nd Aug '14 12:33:25 PM by Nettacki

You're right, I should have suggested such extremes as the entire game lacking combat. However, I stand by my point that there's not that much else I can think of for Joel and Ellie to go do in these situations that's non-violent unless its outright puzzles which can easily fall into being contrived.

Like, I can think of Fetch Quests and Escort Missions, but those tend to fall into 'Padding' and 'Filler' in games for the obvious reason that it diverts the player's attention from the larger goal of the game to a smaller one that then changes back to the original goal from where the player left it. Also, people tend to hate Escort Missions for valid reasons.

The only other thing I can think of would be conversing with people, but this isn't an RPG with dialogue trees so...

Maybe find someway to integrate the big dramatic scenes like Ellie reading the diary in the abandoned house and etc into gameplay? That seems likely since I really feel like the Left Behind DLC is one of the best DL Cs I've ever played because 1) It tells a story we already know the ending to and keeps it interesting, 2) is mostly non-combat based and recontextualizes all gameplay mechanics to a very different situation, and 3) integrates the storytelling with gameplay smoothly, and 4) LESBIAN REPRESENTATION! <3 .

I don't know. All the killing in the game makes the finale with the non-hostile doctor and the nurse as an interesting litmus test, lol

Fair point.

I think what Last of Us needed was more moments (like I said Left Behind did) where the story was more integrated with the gameplay. The Finale needed that. Though, obviously, it was fine enough because of how well adored the game is, but it borderlines the issue.

I was wondering, do people here think that The Last of Us is Deader Than Disco? I don't know if it is yet, but I do think it's heading there because of it's success. It got too popular for it's own good and now people are getting resentful of it's success. It's a bit like the video game equivalent of James Cameron's Avatar or Titanic, which were huge hits on release, then everyone hated them about a year or so after they came out.

I just wonder because when I go on other sites nowadays, I'm constantly seeing people say that The Last of Us is the worst and/or most overrated game they've ever played, and the only reason people like it is because it's a game made by Naughty Dog, who suck and are overrated, and so is Uncharted for that matter. Alternatively, the plot is terrible and cliched and it's only good by video game standards, if it was a film or book nobody would take it seriously, and Joel and Ellie are murderous psychopaths who can't go three minutes without killing a bunch of people (which is an image problem that fellow Naughty Dog character Nathan Drake suffers from too, funnily enough.) I should make it clear that I don't agree with that, I thought the game was great, and I'm not here to troll, so apologies in advance if I came off that way.

Nope.

I would say its a bit overrated; there isn't anything in this game that I couldn't find in another movie or game, but I wouldn't go as far as to say its Deader than Disco.

edited 3rd Aug '14 10:06:59 PM by lancesolous13

Could be due to mixed feelings over a newer, better, DLC-enabled port being brought up to the PS 4, making those of us who bought the game on the PS 3 feel like rubes and test monkeys.

There were a couple of spots toward the middle of the game, where Joel and Ellie have to sneak through an apartment complex after escaping an enemy tank, where I think I might've been able to sneak through with harming anyone. Unfortunately, I wasn't good enough to make it through completely undetected.

@ Lance Soleus

Eh, I'm with you on this one. Being unhappy with protagonists in a survival action video game for being too violent isn't a worthy complaint to me. I really can't see The Last Of Us working like Metal Gear Solid, where problems can be magically solved without violence. In that medium, it works. TLOU stuck hardest when you went from a death scene, to a sudden transition to the next season. The Giraffe scene wouldn't be nearly as meaningful if you hadn't spent a good amount of time prior bouncing from travesty after travesty.

A few more non-combat options would've been nice, but then, that might have come at the expense of other gameplay mechanics. I'd rather have a "full" experience with a fleshed-out combat system, rather than deal with poorly-implemented non-combat options.

edited 3rd Aug '14 9:18:43 PM by FOFD

I don't feel like a rube. As far as I know, there aren't any changes to the actual game in the remaster, so I feel like I still got the full experience from the original.

I can't help but think the fan outcry when Carolyne Petit gave grand theft auto V an 'atrocious' review of 9 out 10 because of it's admittedly poor depiction of women characters. Something that the (presume the male) fans of previous games wouldn't of blinked an eye at but nevertheless would be off putting to newcomers.

It's a good question whether this game will stand the test of next Generation games.

I think The Last Of Us was very fortuitous to be released when it did. It had been a disappointing year for some of the big name releases of 2013 IMHO. GTA and COD played it safe with story and gameplay content while Bio Shock struggled to achieve it's ambitious vision.

The Last Of Us while borrowing heavily from other sources manage to feel fresh among the familiar Triple-A games on the market and perhaps more importantly hadn't been overhyped by the marketing for months before to the point it would inevitably get backlash on release.

We might start seeing more people turning against it now now that it has become such a critical darling. Time will tell.

Personally speaking Uncharted 4:The Revenge Of The Ladder Puzzles isn't in my opinion a particularly spectacular or groundbreaking game, but I think it's an extremely well crafted and effectively done one. I think it will still have its fans