Support NeoGAF

[Y2Kev]

People prioritise different things. Whether anyone considers themselves a 'true gamer' or not is irrelevant to me or anyone else, or the people making these games when they sell as much as they do.

Prioritizing different things is fine. Obviously different people are going to prioritize different things. Let's keep in mind, though, that you just constructed a definition of gamers that excludes people who may have different priorities than you do. So it's hardly "irrelevant" to discussion when it is central to your thesis.

All of which is waaaay off topic, but my view stands- TLoU's success is primarily derived from well-executed, fashionably bleak storytelling, capitalising on a narrative-oriented paradigm shift. Little of it is attributable to its gameplay.

You can have your view, but what is it based on?

Wolfenstein

Which I just bought and think is really great!

 

[jon bones]

This is kind of what I'm talking about.

yeah, that's why we're all giving you shit for it.... how are you not seeing this?

 

[antitrop]

...wait, I'm confused. We (EGM) didn't give it 10/10. Is this just like a joke image?

IT'S BEEN A LIE THIS WHOLE TIME

 

[Jigolo]

Its so close

 

[Hubb]

People prioritise different things. Whether anyone considers themselves a 'true gamer' or not is irrelevant to me or anyone else, or the people making these games when they sell as much as they do.

All of which is waaaay off topic, but my view stands- TLoU's success is primarily derived from well-executed, fashionably bleak storytelling, capitalising on a narrative-oriented paradigm shift. Little of it is attributable to its gameplay.

The more people that play it the more I hear about how great the MP is. Is that not gameplay? I can only hope everyone jumping on the PS4 version will give the MP a shot. It's where I will spend most of my time.

 

[Cave Johnson]

You can't (and won't) substantiate any of this. I see no evidence of any of the following:

1. The gameplay was not a major focus of praise the game was receiving, either from the media or the forum (N.B. I just read all of the review summaries on the Metacritic).

Please explain what it means for "gameplay to be hardly extrapolated".

Basically, I prefer observing reviews breakdown gameplay to it's fundamental mechanics. What works, and how it is approached. For instance, Vanquish, that is a game that requires a competency around it's systems that, if you break it down to parts and weave them together would automatically make it distinct from other shooters. The difference between having a review that is rushed and a review that can explain it's systems could mean "another shooter" or "a unique approach to shooter design". Nothing I've read from TLOU reviews indicate it's basically Uncharted's more passive stealth approach (gameplay wise).

2. Please prove the AI was nerfed. I've asked two other posters to do this in the past and they have both backed off the claim when pressed. I'd love to see you actually demonstrate this as being true.

I'll link HyperBitHero's video. His explanation mirrors my own.

Additionally, the AI observing your partners and entering an alert status would have been bad game design. That would have been incredibly frustrating and would have punished players for behaviors outside of their control.

How so? Why is being alerted "bad design"? The game doesn't end when you are spotted so why would that be relevant here? Unless of course, you treat every encounter as a is/or mandatory stealth approach, then you and I have very different expectations of a tactical game. "Outside your control" happens when you create emergent design. It seems ND saw the line and decided to step back a bit but not enough to see where that they practically dumbed the AI only be observant when alerted by you.

3. Please prove that gamers were talking about the reveal gameplay after the actual game was out and/or continue to do so.

Here is a discussion of the extended TLOU reveal.

The scene in that original reveal is one of the more linear (that is, rectangular) setpieces in the game. The player is just with one companion (as opposed to three) who stays hidden at all times. Ellie does this in that location in the final product. It is not analogous to some of the other environments throughout the game where Joel is accompanied by two or more AI partners that are actively moving through larger environments.

You can't just say stuff like this and expect it to go unchallenged, particularly when you argue, as you have, that it is a merely "competent" game. Talk about damning with faint praise.

I sense that by criticising this game has got a strong reaction from you. What's wrong with being "competent"? I don't intend to put words in your mouth but it seems that any praise other than devout worship is unacceptable. I don't know about you but when I say "competent", that's actually me praising the game considering I see 90% of the games as trash. It really takes a lot to actually impress me.[/quote]

The point is that neither of you have hit anything on the head except for squarely codifying your perception of an incredible amount of praise as oriented in a particular fashion or angled in a particular way. Look at Neff's quote: "...the zealous praise for this game doesn't seem terribly steeped in the gameplay..." Sure, if you don't want it to be the case. This is called confirmation bias. Sorry, it's demonstrably false.

What would you say has more praise leaning towards: Gameplay or Story?

 

[illmatic22]

IT'S BEEN A LIE THIS WHOLE TIME

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE IN ANYMORE

 

[OsirisBlack]

People prioritise different things. Whether anyone considers themselves a 'true gamer' or not is irrelevant to me or anyone else, or the people making these games when they sell as much as they do.

All of which is waaaay off topic, but my view stands- TLoU's success is primarily derived from well-executed, fashionably bleak storytelling, capitalising on a narrative-oriented paradigm shift. Little of it is attributable to its gameplay.



This is kind of what I'm talking about.

This is starting to sound eerily like an Order 1886 thread...... are you insinuating that the game is "Filmic" ? .... Does this happen in all Sony exclusive threads or just the Order and anything Naughty Dog?

 

[TetraGenesis]

Y2Kev for mother fucking president.

It's crazy that people can't just not like thing without disparaging the masses that do like thing.

 

[Evo X]

IT'S BEEN A LIE THIS WHOLE TIME

What!?

Pre-order cancelled.

 

[Hoje0308]

Take a look at games like F.E.A.R. which is notably known for its relentless and AI. That is the main focus and discussion everytime the game is brought up. This is not the case for the last of us. Only a few reviews only talk about the AI, everyone else treated it like a re-evaluation of ND"s formula through their reviews.

This isn't a valid response to the quote. Jesus, the number of fallacious arguments being made in this thread...

 

[Hubb]

How so? Why is being alerted "bad design"? The game doesn't end when you are spotted so why would that be relevant here?

It does if you are playing Survivor or Grounded. The main issue is that there is no partner AI system. You have no indicator for when they are going to move and which cover they will move to. In other words any stealth portion of the game has now just become RNG, everyone's favorite thing.

 

[Percy]

I enjoyed The Last of Us for it's gameplay.

 

[Ottoni_Bastos]

This is starting to sound eerily like an Order 1886 thread...... are you insinuating that the game is "Filmic" ? .... Does this happen in all Sony exclusive threads or just the Order and anything Naughty Dog?

Basically if the game have great graphics and a good story,people think it have a bad gameplay.

Sony exclusives usually are single player story-driven experience so the haters assume that the gameplay sucks.

 

[FTF]

...wait, I'm confused. We (EGM) didn't give it 10/10. Is this just like a joke image?

You mean you haven't given it a 10 yet!

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Wolfenstein: TNO is a great example of what you get when a talented developer has a very clear vision for the kind of game that they want to make. And when they are blessed with a publisher that gives them the budget and time that they need to make it work. It was made a veteran team of ~50 over about 3 years with no development hell or major obstructions. They just sat in cold-ass Sweden, quietly making a kickass game.

We need more games like it, in these days of annualized franchises.

I wouldn't exactly say that the devs were blessed with Bethesda. Just lucky that they were smart enough to say yes to be purchased by them.

 

[antitrop]

I wouldn't exactly say that the devs where blessed with Bethesda.

MachineGames Creative Director, from the Giant Bomb interview:

Matthies: [laughs] I’ve been in the industry in for 16 years and worked with many different publishers. When you work with a new publisher…this was the first game that we’d done for Bethesda. You don’t really know how that’s going to be going in. We’ve always respected Bethesda because they tend to gravitate towards quality in their products. They have good methods of allowing quality to flourish, whereas other publishers are more marketing driven, and they have a different kind of focus. We certainly thought we were in a prosperous partnership creatively, but we didn’t know for sure until we actually started making the game. To our great happiness, it all worked out really well. They never constricted us in any way creatively, which felt really good.

EDIT: Well, your edit changes things. I just meant to say they were lucky.

 

[shinobi602]

All of which is waaaay off topic, but my view stands- TLoU's success is primarily derived from well-executed, fashionably bleak storytelling, capitalising on a narrative-oriented paradigm shift. Little of it is attributable to its gameplay.

Have you played the game?

 

[Y2Kev]

Basically, I prefer observing reviews breakdown gameplay to it's fundamental mechanics. What works, and how it is approached. For instance, Vanquish, that is a game that requires a competency around it's systems that, if you break it down to parts and weave them together would automatically make it distinct from other shooters. The difference between having a review that is rushed and a review that can explain it's systems could mean "another shooter" or "a unique approach to shooter design". Nothing I've read from TLOU reviews indicate it's basically Uncharted's more passive stealth approach (gameplay wise).

There are plenty of reviews that attempt to differentiate the game from Uncharted, but what are we really discussing here? We can discuss what makes an interesting or better written review, but I didn't think we were going to do that.

I'll link HyperBitHero's video. His explanation mirrors my own.

The findings in that video are highly contentious and even disputed by Naughty Dog. The AMA is linked under the YouTube video. Still, I think this is probably not worth arguing.

edit: I'm footnoting this to say Naughty Dog[gers] instead of Naughty Dog. I don't know that the employees in the AMA speak for the company as a whole.

How so? Why is being alerted "bad design"? The game doesn't end when you are spotted so why would that be relevant here? Unless of course, you treat every encounter as a is/or mandatory stealth approach, then you and I have very different expectations of a tactical game. "Outside your control" happens when you create emergent design. It seems ND saw the line and decided to step back a bit but not enough to see where that they practically dumbed the AI only be observant when alerted by you.

It's bad design to punish the player (entering an alert state in a stealth game is essentially a fail state) for behavior she cannot control. There are two design options here: the NPCs are simply along for the ride until you enter alert (at which point they become active and enemies target them) or they are able to trigger alert statuses on their own. I think the latter scenario would be disastrous. Again, at times the party is huge. Transitioning stealthily between cover points with 3 NPCs all who could be triggering fail states would be tedious.

I can't think of too many games where non-controllable (at all) NPCs can trigger fail states. I can't think of any, actually. Potentially something like an older Rainbow Six.

Here is a discussion of the extended TLOU reveal.

I don't think you understood what I meant. I don't contend that people did not discuss the game at length in 2012. I contended that they didn't talk more about the gameplay in 2012 than post-release of the game. That comment has not been substantiated.

I sense that by criticising this game has got a strong reaction from you. What's wrong with being "competent"? I don't intend to put words in your mouth but it seems that any praise other than devout worship is unacceptable. I don't know about you but when I say "competent", that's actually me praising the game considering I see 90% of the games as trash. It really takes a lot to actually impress me.

You affirmed Neff's incredibly self-centered and pretentious view of the game and "gamers." That, coupled with how you characterized the consensus (or what could be one), elicited a very strong reaction in me.

The rest is putting words in my mouth as you say so I won't respond to it. I'm pretty lax about responding to what other people think individually of a title or a series.
I'm really very non-confrontational. I don't take arguing well. It gives me heartburn. I'm on GAF to relax and enjoy myself.

I am pretty much the exact opposite when other people characterize broader reactions; I find it to be obnoxious. Not that you are obnoxious.

What would you say has more praise leaning towards: Gameplay or Story?

I think the game is praised as a whole for what it is--tight integration of the two where both sides are holding up their end of the bargain equally.

 

[GQman2121]

My sole issue with the games AI is that the human enemies appear to be deaf or incapable of hearing their partners being choked out a few mere feet away. That was the only thing that really had me scratching my head fairly early on in the game.

Spoiler

The encounter on the bridge after meeting Marlene for the first time requires the player as Joel to choke out one guard while Marlene chokes out another. You control when she takes out her guard by initiating contact with yours. That's fine.

However, the encounter directly after that has two guards on the top of the bridge that Joel has to take out on his own. Guard one has his back turned to the player; guard two--after executing Marlene's friends--walks towards guard one and leaves a widow for Joel to creep up behind him for the choke out.

The guards are no more than ten feet apart. You can choke both of them out within seconds of one another because the first guard is completely oblivious to the gasps and sounds the second dying guard is clearly making.

This situation happens more than few times over the course of the game, and like I said, is the one thing that really stood out to me when dealing with the AI.

Why not just have Marlene, or later Ellie, be more involved when these situations require it? Better yet, why not just not design around these situations if it's an issue with the AI system?

It's a small gripe in the big scheme of things, but stands out because I feel like the AI is otherwise very impressive especially in large groups when they're on the hunt and aware of your presence in the area.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

MachineGames Creative Director, from the Giant Bomb interview:



EDIT: Well, your edit changes things. I just meant to say they were lucky.

You know you and me agree on these things, Anti. It's just that Bethesda left me bitter with the Prey 2/Human Head thing.

 

[RoboPlato]

Have you played the game?

I've never see anyone who tries to argue that this game has poor gameplay actually prove that they've played it. It's always various plays on the game having tons of QTEs, playing itself, or being all cutscenes and none of that is true. The only explicit reference to the game is the AI not reacting to allies but little else.

 

[akidnamededdy]

I've never see anyone who tries to argue that this game has poor gameplay actually prove that they've played it. It's always various plays on the game having tons of QTEs, playing itself, or being all cutscenes and none of that is true.

Well...that depends on your definition of "tons."

 

[Vire]

Well this thread is a giant toilet of diarrhea. Glad I was celebrating the fourth instead of reading this.

 

[HORRORSHØW]

 

[Wynnebeck]

Kev laying down truthfacts as usual.

 

[blame space]

what's this thread about

 

[LookAtMeGo]

what's this thread about

If you like the last of us you're not a real gamer. Real gamers dont like average movies with button presses.

 

[Neff]

Let's keep in mind, though, that you just constructed a definition of gamers that excludes people who may have different priorities than you do. So it's hardly "irrelevant" to discussion when it is central to your thesis.

Not quite, I acknowledged the existence of a demographic whose preferences I share, the same demographic who tends to form a significant bulk of TLoU critics.

Which is absolutely irrelevant to the ridiculous 'gamers and not gamers' thing, which people seem more keen to discuss.

Let's be clear. I haven't accused anyone of being anything. Now I am directly being accused of something. I'm leaving it at that.

Have you played the game?

Yes. As you might have gathered, I didn't like it.

 

[Salex_]

What the hell is going on in this thread...

Question: Didn't play the game yet, but how can some people say it has bad gameplay if the multiplayer gets so much praise? If the multiplayer is great, the gameplay has to be great.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Hubb]

What the hell is going on in this thread...

Question: Didn't play the game yet, but how can some people say it has bad gameplay if the multiplayer gets so much praise? If the multiplayer is great, the gameplay has to be great.

Or am I missing something?

Nothing in this game gets praise but its sub par writing.

 

[Hypron]

Because every other part of FEAR is shit. It is the only positive thing to talk about with FEAR. How can you compare these two games?

Hey come on now, FEAR has some awesome gunplay, good AI isn't the only thing it has going for it.

 

[shinobi602]

Yes. As you might have gathered, I didn't like it.

Very interesting, what specifically turned you off from the gameplay? I thought that was a department the game excelled in, especially in how you could tackle the various scenarios it puts you in. Lots of tools and weapons at your disposal, and the AI didn't feel dumb to me at all.

 

[Y2Kev]

Not quite, I acknowledged the existence of a demographic whose preferences I share

Which you defined explicitly as "gamers." Why are you so sheepish about this now? You said it in plain English here:

Let's assert that when I say something like 'gamers', I'm talking about those who relish a traditional approach to moving games forward via mechanics and ideas...

So what are people that aren't that (at least according to you)?

I'm sure you understand why people are more interested in talking about first principles (definitions) when you say something so divisive. Humans like to classify things.

Just tell me what I'm misunderstanding. I'm pretty dumb so I misunderstand a lot.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

I'm curious about the games that DO push games forward...

I'm assuming these guys only play Tetris, Pacman, and mobile games? Dat pure gameplay?

Or will it be open world games with no narrative with crafting systems? Those are all the rage these days so maybe not. Wouldn't want to be part of that herd mentality.

Hmmm. Oh Nintendo has a lot of gameplay first type games like nu Mario, nu Mario Kart, nu Zelda, nu DKC etc. Maybe these?

A game in 2013/14 with a health system, crafting mechanic, limited resources with challenging AI (play on harder difficulties) in the AAA space that has garnered this much attention is absolutely moving games in the right direction. If you can't see that, then you're clearly not as open minded as you think you are. There's room for well designed and expertly executed cinematic games just as there is for your favorite genre. (I still want to guess. It's abstract kickstarter projects that never meet their goals innit?)

 

[Deleted member 80556]

I'm on GAF to relax and enjoy myself.

I knew you didn't think TLG was dead.

 

[Vire]

I knew you didn't think TLG was dead.

I think Y2Kev took pleasure in our misery. He thrives on our tears.

 

[Neff]

Very interesting, what specifically turned you off from the gameplay? I thought that was a department the game excelled in, especially in how you could tackle the various scenarios it puts you in. Lots of tools and weapons at your disposal, and the AI didn't feel dumb to me at all.

I took issue with the fact that it was simply more of what I was already overfed with last gen with a few horror constraints placed here and there. It doesn't do anything bad per se, it just doesn't do anything good, either. It lacks programming polish relative to its production values, and also comes packaged with all the oft-highlighted bugs. The star of the show was the story, voice acting and mocapping, and the story I felt was generic and cliché.

I'm sure you understand why people are more interested in talking about first principles (definitions) when you say something so divisive. Humans like to classify things.

Just tell me what I'm misunderstanding. I'm pretty dumb so I misunderstand a lot.

I'm not an authority, I wouldn't worry.

 

[Vire]

I took issue with the fact that it was simply more of what I was already overfed with last gen with a few horror constraints placed here and there. It doesn't do anything bad per se, it just doesn't do anything good, either. It lacks programming polish relative to its production values, and also comes packaged with all the oft-highlighted bugs. The star of the show was the story, voice acting and mocapping, and the story I felt was generic and cliché.



I'm not an authority, I wouldn't worry.

Strange, I thought the story's ending was an excellent subversion of people's expectations and anything but cliche.

But I guess to each his own.

 

[shinobi602]

I took issue with the fact that it was simply more of what I was already overfed with last gen with a few horror constraints placed here and there. It doesn't do anything bad per se, it just doesn't do anything good, either. It lacks programming polish relative to its production values, and also comes packaged with all the oft-highlighted bugs. The star of the show was the story, voice acting and mocapping, and the story I felt was generic and cliché.

Well, everyone has their opinion obviously. I actually thought the story (namely the developing relationship between Joel and Ellie) extremely refreshing, I felt like I hadn't seen anything like it in the gaming medium at the time. The slow pace of the gameplay and scenarios asking for the player's patience and sense of planning didn't feel like any other action adventure game I'd played before then

All in all though, to each his own!

 

[blame space]

I'm learning a lot about whose own each person has

 

[lukeskymac]

In the past it was.

Now you can build PCs that handily outperform consoles for the same price as a console!

1) You can't build a PC that outperforms a PS4 for $400
2) Whenever people mention the PC version, the list of advantages assumes a ridiculously top-end one.
3) I built my rig so don't try to bullshit me.

It's elitism.

 

[Bobby_Sullivan]

Maybe now we can see all of the improvements on YouTube's fancy new 60 fps format.

I just need to see gameplay confirming the quality and I will fucking buy a ps4 that same day...

 

[Lord of Castamere]

I'm learning a lot about whose own each person has

but whose own do you have?

 

[SRTtoZ]

Just move up the release date. NO ONE WILL COMPLAIN!

 

[Vire]

Just move up the release date. NO ONE WILL COMPLAIN!

At least we got the Destiny beta until then...

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

I took issue with the fact that it was simply more of what I was already overfed with last gen with a few horror constraints placed here and there. It doesn't do anything bad per se, it just doesn't do anything good, either. It lacks programming polish relative to its production values, and also comes packaged with all the oft-highlighted bugs. The star of the show was the story, voice acting and mocapping, and the story I felt was generic and cliché.

As I just mentioned, bringing back a health system and limited resources and unscripted, open area gameplay in the AAA space IS A GOOD THING!

What did you want? You weren't going into the game with an open mind, that's plainly obvious. Because afterall, you were expecting another ND game like all the others you were overfed with. So what game would you rather have played?

 

[The Lamp]

I loved The Last of Us for its thrilling gameplay and thrilling story, personally. I felt like both were designed for each other.

 

[reKon]

Have you played the game?

I was going to ask the same, lol. I haven't played it myself, but GAF basically told me that playing on hard with listening mode off is the proper way to play

 

[Statue of Limitation]

A rant I had posted else where in regards to LOU having "average" gameplay or doing nothing "good" with it.

This is directed at everyone who is waiting for the new "innovation" which just isn't coming.

This is the nitpick people pull out when a game does nothing wrong. Uncharted has suffered with this for years as well. Shooting is tight, animation is perfect, sound design is spot on, AI is smart, controls are great. But it does nothing new. That's not average, that's cream of the crop. Last of Us gameplay is not average but neither does it innovate.

And why should it? It's innovating in other areas, in its story and characters and dialogue interaction. How's ground zeroes innovating, the open world schick? Hitman series has been doing it for years. GZ plays largely the same to MGS4 which came out 6 years ago. The reason you and I like the game is because its tight and its polished.

How many game's actually innovate? Gameplay was standardised in the PS2 generation. Its why a FPS on PS2 plays largely the same on your PS4. Or an action game. Or a racing game. Or any game.

This is why you have reviews calling out PS4 games as not feeling "next-gen". Something feels missing when really the games are complete. On the tail end of the PS2 generation TPS games became standardised, L1+R1 to shoot, cover, the same basic controls. Compare the way MGS3 controls to how MGS4 controls like every other TPS.

We standardised gameplay because somewhere between Tomb Raider and Resident Evil 4 we found what felt comfortable for TPS's and every game released on PS3 adhered to this system, and now on the PS4 nothing feels "next-gen" because of it.

Developers need to innovate to hold our interest. Destiny is innovative through its online interaction, but its gameplay is largely the same as Halo. That doesn't make Destiny average, and it doesn't matter that we've seen it all before because it looks great and it plays tight.

People need to save their criticisms for the game's that are still struggling to learn the lessons taught in the PS2 era. Don't criticise TLOU for being top of its genre and doing nothing new - criticise games like L.A Noire for fucking it up so badly when everyone knows how its done by now.