Not everybody has the time or will to invest in deep and complex games.
Most people actually prefer to mash buttons in GoW and get a pretty light show, over slaving away in DMC5 in order to internalize that tight style switching combo.
I’ve replayed The Last of Us two or three times, and I actually started another play-through the other week because I got excited about Part II. Turning “listen mode” off really makes it a fun challenge in my opinion.
You’re right though, a movie isn’t 60 bucks, but a movie is not 18 hours long either, and you’re not controlling any of the movie’s characters.
How the hell do you link a 50 min video of a guy explaining how to streamline and simplify a melee system as much as possible while still making it cinematic as a means of displaying how deep the mechanics are? The other half of the video talks about impact, sync and other related things, which does not equate to the combat being any more deep. For the player, you're still just mashing X to do shit.
The last of us is NOT made to be a deep mechanically driven game. And that is fine, you don't have to claim it is. It's a game with a focus on the Hollywood story with very basic gameplay concepts disguised with animation techniques to make it more flashy.
Who the hell still talks about ryse or quantum break? I've seen literally no-one claiming that Ryse is some masterpiece in combat design. And for a good reason. Meanwhile, we have this thread.
For me it’s just most of Sony’s first party games feel like movie games. The gameplay is something I care about more than graphics or even realism so I generally only play those games once and never again.
I have a brief experience with my PS4. Games I played include:
GT Sport (the only game I bought so far): played every day since I bought the system almost 2 months ago. Obviously not a movie.
Uncharted 4 (played around 12h when my friend lent me the console): It did feel like a movie. Also, shooting was awful and the exploration part is just a climb simulator.
God of War (played for about 3h in the same context): No movie feel here, just a story-driven game with incredible/brutal combat.
The Last of Us (got this month with PS+): Loving the game! Is it a movie? Hell no, I would put it in the same category as God of War.
That's my contribution to the discussion lol.
Edit: I will definitely buy GoW but I'm not touching U4, even if I get it for free.
How the hell do you link a 50 min video of a guy explaining how to streamline and simplify a melee system as much as possible while still making it cinematic as a means of displaying how deep the mechanics are? The other half of the video talks about impact, sync and other related things, which does not equate to the combat being any more deep. For the player, you're still just mashing X to do shit.
The last of us is NOT made to be a deep mechanically driven game. And that is fine, you don't have to claim it is. It's a game with a focus on the Hollywood story with very basic gameplay concepts disguised with animation techniques to make it more flashy.
Who the hell still talks about ryse or quantum break? I've seen literally no-one claiming that Ryse is some masterpiece in combat design. And for a good reason. Meanwhile, we have this thread.
Quantum Break came out the same year as Uncharted 4. My point was that some of the same people that enjoyed it are calling games like Uncharted 4 "movie games" lol
How the hell do you link a 50 min video of a guy explaining how to streamline and simplify a melee system as much as possible while still making it cinematic as a means of displaying how deep the mechanics are? The other half of the video talks about impact, sync and other related things, which does not equate to the combat being any more deep. For the player, you're still just mashing X to do shit.
The last of us is NOT made to be a deep mechanically driven game. And that is fine, you don't have to claim it is. It's a game with a focus on the Hollywood story with very basic gameplay concepts disguised with animation techniques to make it more flashy.
The claim is that they focused more on the story than the gameplay and that is false.
Cut scenes are just as long as even shorter than most triple A games. The claim is that they talked about the story during interviews, which somehow proves they focused more on the story and that's false.
Game DOES have deep mechanics.
You're posting based on pure ignorance.
I use Gears as an example because people claim this has deeper gameplay elements than the Last of Us and that's simple NOT true.
The last of us is NOT made to be a deep mechanically driven game. And that is fine, you don't have to claim it is. It's a game with a focus on the Hollywood story with very basic gameplay concepts disguised with animation techniques to make it more flashy.
Melee combat is far more advance than game like Gears. Ever single hit reacts differently based on where you are in the environment. There's literally no arguing this.
Guns also react differently when you shoot them, which is common in a lot of shooting games.
WHAT IS not common is that each gun reacts differently WHEN you're shot.
People talk about how The Last of Us has bad AI, yet it's still more advance than Gears. I played both and anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves. The enemies AI in Gears is designed to run towards you, which literally no stealth or advanced AI techniques. The AI is better int he Last of Us and deeper, and it goes to another level in The Last of Us Part II.
Stop with the "very basic gameplay concept argument. You're really don't know what you're talking about.
The claim is that they focused more on the story than the gameplay and that is false.
Cut scenes are just as long as even shorter than most triple A games. The claim is that they talked about the story during interviews, which somehow proves they focused more on the story and that's false.
You're posting based on pure ignorance.
I use Gears as an example because people claim this has deeper gameplay elements than the Last of Us and that's simple NOT true.
Melee combat is far more advance than game like Gears. Ever single hit reacts differently based on where you are in the environment. There's literally no arguing this.
Guns also react differently when you shoot them, which is common in a lot of shooting games.
WHAT IS not common is that each gun reacts differently WHEN you're shot.
People talk about how The Last of Us has bad AI, yet it's still more advance than Gears. I played both and anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves. The enemies AI in Gears is designed to run towards you, which literally no stealth or advanced AI techniques. The AI is better int he Last of Us and deeper, and it goes to another level in The Last of Us Part II.
Stop with the "very basic gameplay concept argument. You're really don't know what you're talking about.
You literally can't go two sentences without tripping yourself over Gears comparison. I'm not here to join in your console warring circle-jerk. I'm here to talk about TLOU.
Prove it. Show me what exactly is deep about the game. Having nice animation when you press the melee button does not mean the game has any more depth. Do you understand what I'm saying?
You literally can't go two sentences without tripping yourself over Gears comparison. I'm not here to join in your console warring circle-jerk. I'm here to talk about TLOU.
Prove it. Show me what exactly is deep about the game. Having nice animation when you press the melee button does not mean the game has any more depth. Do you understand what I'm saying?
No one is console warring. It's about comparing a game with less gameplay mechanics that people don't consider a movie.
If I was console warring, I would be saying Gears is a bad game when it's not. THe reason why the AI is not as good is because it's not a stealth game. The enemies are designed to go at you because it's a cover shooter.
And no I'm not tripping over myself. You tried to explain your point and failed. I took the most common third person game and compared it to another. I can even use Resident Evil 2 REMAKE as example.
I proved my point... you haven't.
Prove it. Show me what exactly is deep about the game. Having nice animation when you press the melee button does not mean the game has any more depth. Do you understand what I'm saying?
No one is console warring. It's about comparing a game with less gameplay mechanics that people don't consider a movie.
If I was console warring, I would be saying Gears is a bad game when it's not. THe reason why the AI is not as good is because it's not a stealth game. The enemies are designed to go at you because it's a cover shooter.
And no I'm not tripping over myself. You tried to explain your point and failed. I took the most common third person game and compared it to another. I can even use Resident Evil 2 REMAKE as example.
I proved my point... you haven't.
I already did. You still haven't offered a rebuttal, which proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Jesus Christ. Can you just list the things that make TLOU's gameplay deep? Or you want me to just look over your last two posts and point out how most of it doesn't have anything to do with mechanical complexity and it's just you telling me "You don't know what you're talking about"
The claim is that they focused more on the story than the gameplay and that is false.
Cut scenes are just as long as even shorter than most triple A games. The claim is that they talked about the story during interviews, which somehow proves they focused more on the story and that's false.
Game DOES have deep mechanics.
You're posting based on pure ignorance.
I use Gears as an example because people claim this has deeper gameplay elements than the Last of Us and that's simple NOT true.
Melee combat is far more advance than game like Gears. Ever single hit reacts differently based on where you are in the environment. There's literally no arguing this.
Guns also react differently when you shoot them, which is common in a lot of shooting games.
WHAT IS not common is that each gun reacts differently WHEN you're shot.
People talk about how The Last of Us has bad AI, yet it's still more advance than Gears. I played both and anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves. The enemies AI in Gears is designed to run towards you, which literally no stealth or advanced AI techniques. The AI is better int he Last of Us and deeper, and it goes to another level in The Last of Us Part II.
Stop with the "very basic gameplay concept argument. You're really don't know what you're talking about.
Jesus Christ. Can you just list the things that make TLOU's gameplay deep? Or you want me to just look over your last two posts and point out how most of it doesn't have anything to do with mechanical complexity and it's just you telling me "You don't know what you're talking about"
Gameplay and combat in this "heavy story games" is fucking ace. (Or just very good)
Horizon
Spiderman
Infamous rushed son
Gow
Ratchet and clank
Tlou
Uncharted 4 (general gunplay and movements are great, too bad the game is a borefest for other reason)
Of course if people play these games at easy or normal they can look or feel simple or without any deep because you can beat everything with button smashing.
Horizon on ultra hard or gow at the latest 2 difficulty levels are some of the best gameplay experience of this gen for me, don't bullshit me with this no gameplay narrative...
Even the just acceptable days gone is crazy fun when you fight against the giant hordes of zombies at high difficulty (even negative reviews admit that)
Spiderman has the best freeflow combat iteration of any games (personally not a fun of this style of combat, but spidey is the only one that i enjoyed recently) and one of the best traversal system in an open world game.
The claim is that the gameplay doesn't have any depth, it's just bare-bones third person action with fancy animations. That was my claim, I don't know or care about anyone else's.
Cut scenes are just as long as even shorter than most triple A games. The claim is that they talked about the story during interviews, which somehow proves they focused more on the story and that's false.
Melee combat is far more advance than game like Gears. Ever single hit reacts differently based on where you are in the environment. There's literally no arguing this.
People talk about how The Last of Us has bad AI, yet it's still more advance than Gears. I played both and anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves. The enemies AI in Gears is designed to run towards you, which literally no stealth or advanced AI techniques. The AI is better int he Last of Us and deeper, and it goes to another level in The Last of Us Part II.
No one is console warring. It's about comparing a game with less gameplay mechanics that people don't consider a movie.
If I was console warring, I would be saying Gears is a bad game when it's not. THe reason why the AI is not as good is because it's not a stealth game. The enemies are designed to go at you because it's a cover shooter.
And no I'm not tripping over myself. You tried to explain your point and failed. I took the most common third person game and compared it to another. I can even use Resident Evil 2 REMAKE as example.
These last two quotes don't have anything of worth in it about the gameplay.
Now that we settled this. Can you tell me where TLOU's mechanical complexity comes from? Or do you still think you've given me everything. Because if you did, than I wasted my time here.
No its super simple i finished TLOU,god of war and uncharted. Yes all of them. I never went back after finishing those games because the gameplay was rather weak. And once i have seen the story that's it. No more surprises to me.
There are some story heavy games like metal gear solid that also have deep and good gameplay. And guess what i replay those games from time to time. I had ZERO interest in buying uncharted 1 - 3 remakes on ps4. Cause i knew the stories.
Meanwhile i keep coming back to gears and halo for the great gameplay. This has nothing to do with MP. It's the deep gameplay mechanics that keep me playing them.
Diablo 3 is an amazing example i don't know anyone that liked the story. But most of them clocked over 500+ hours min on the game anyway.
I've replayed all the mainline Halos SOOOOO many times, and while I love the stories and the lore, I know them all by heart now. It's the amazing gameplay that brings me back and it's the only game I have the patience to play on legendary because it's so damn good.
I didn't play the New God of War so I can't comment, but with the ND games it felt like what gameplay there was just got in the way of the story and set pieces.
DForce
"Last of Us, Uncharted and God of War has deeper gameplay mechanics than Halo and Gears. "
Okay, here's the breakdown of your last two posts and how they relate to the gameplay of TLOU
The claim is that the gameplay doesn't have any depth, it's just bare-bones third person action with fancy animations. That was my claim, I don't know or care about anyone else's.
Whose claim? You keep going on "claims". I made no such claims.
k. good argument
Again, whose' claims?
And it doesn't change anything for you as a player. You don't have to think any differently. It's just a nice animation.
How is that relevant to the single-player?
Haven't played any gears game so I wouldn't know.
Good one, you really showed me how deep the gameplay is.
These last two quotes don't have anything of worth in it about the gameplay.
Now that we settled this. Can you tell me where TLOU's mechanical complexity comes from?
Now you're saying "How is that relevant to the single-play" which means you're trying to EXCLUDE the multiplayer aspect.
Here is your initial post.
Pay attention.
How the hell do you link a 50 min video of a guy explaining how to streamline and simplify a melee system as much as possible while still making it cinematic as a means of displaying how deep the mechanics are? The other half of the video talks about impact, sync and other related things, which does not equate to the combat being any more deep. For the player, you're still just mashing X to do shit. The last of us is NOT made to be a deep mechanically driven game. And that is fine, you don't have to claim it is. It's a game with a focus on the Hollywood story with very basic gameplay concepts disguised with animation techniques to make it more flashy.
You can't take out the multiplayer and then claim it is NOT made to be deep mechanically.
If the game is designed to be deep in both SINGLE player AND mutliplayer, then that means it WAS made to be deep mechanically.
You're trying to exclude multiplayer because you know for a fact that you don't know anything about how deep the mechanics go.
Stealth mechanics, upgrading\crafting system, melee combat all plays factors. These mechanics than what you find in a lot of games.
If this makes TLOU an interactive movie, then you would have to put all games with less mechanics (such as Resident Evil 2: Remake) in an interactive movie category.
Man i get having an affinity for a brand or a product, but it has been a while since i've read anyone so deep in the hole. Really makes me nostalgic for my middle school years.
Here's what you're claiming. That the single-player is even less mechanically complex than the multiplayer. And what are we talking about here, view flinching? C'mon now. Not only do you think that this is somehow note-worthy but you think it's revolutionary for some reason.
FINALLY, We have an answer to my question. After 3 fucking posts of deflecting.
Here :
Stealth Mechanics: Absolute run-of-the-mill AAA game stealth mechanic. Literally no thought required.
Upgrading\crafting system: Alcohol + cloth = med kit .
Melee combat : Press X to awesome. Press triangle to block. Wow.
Here's the thing. In the quote above you are not claiming that they are mechanically complex. Because they aren't, and you know you can't defend it, but instead what you're trying to do is claim that all of these mechanics together are somehow making this deep game which it isn't. And it will never be.
And if you do think that the above mechanics are complex than, I don't know, I guess you need to play more video games.
I've replayed all the mainline Halos SOOOOO many times, and while I love the stories and the lore, I know them all by heart now. It's the amazing gameplay that brings me back and it's the only game I have the patience to play on legendary because it's so damn good.
I didn't play the New God of War so I can't comment, but with the ND games it felt like what gameplay there was just got in the way of the story and set pieces.
DForce
"Last of Us, Uncharted and God of War has deeper gameplay mechanics than Halo and Gears. "
I knew that was the only thing that you would latch on from that whole post
Here's what you're claiming. That the single-player is even less mechanically complex than the multiplayer. And what are we talking about here, view flinching? C'mon now. Not only do you think that this is somehow note-worthy but you think it's revolutionary for some reason.
FINALLY, We have an answer to my question. After 3 fucking posts of deflecting.
Here :
Stealth Mechanics: Absolute run-of-the-mill AAA game stealth mechanic. Literally no thought required.
Upgrading\crafting system: Alcohol + cloth = med kit .
Melee combat : Press X to awesome. Press triangle to block. Wow.
Here's the thing. In the quote above you are not claiming that they are mechanically complex. Because they aren't, and you know you can't defend it, but instead what you're trying to do is claim that all of these mechanics together are somehow making this deep game which it isn't. And it will never be.
And if you do think that the above mechanics are complex than, I don't know, I guess you need to play more video games.
Congrats, you just outed yourself as a shitposter who didn't even play a single minute of any of the games you shit on, you could've just said it wasn't your cup of tea and moved on.
Sorry sonygaf, but games like the new god of war are absolutely more focused on cinematic elements than gameplay. Man that game is a steaming pile of shit
What about the XBOX do you want me to defend, exactly?
Sounds like you're the one who needs to get a life, I took issue with a specific meme criticism because to me it's false, that's all.
They run at a low frame rates, prioritize presentation over performance and gameplay, and usually the gameplay itself is very semplicistic/mainstream to appeal to the broadest possible audience.
You are not buying God of War or Uncharted for the high octane dash cancelling multi layered combo action or the intense and satisfying head popping gunplay, you buy those games for the story, the environments and the character moments.
Give it a rest op, those games are good but not for the gameplay part, and that's fine.
Low frame rates? Guess last gen was entirely cinematic. Presentation over performance and gameplay sounds like the sort of argument you'd fall on your face trying to prove, nevermind that franchises like Gears and Halo after their initial entries also began prioritizing presentation, scripted events and variety levels. Gears 1 was a pure combat game, Halo 1 was just dropping you into sandboxes for gameplay. Anyone who goes from Gears 1/Halo 1 campaigns to their sequels and doesn't see the huge shift in what's prioritized is lying to themselves. Think about how often Gears 2 did something besides just give you a room full of cover and enemies because it wanted to catch the tail of cinematic gaming.
You ever heard the term easy to learn difficult to master? Because that's the idea behind Sony first party titles, it might be easy to learn the combat in these games and do well on Normal difficulty, but up the difficulty and prove you can master it and many casuals are left in the dust.
You might not want to make assumptions about why I buy games. And fast-paced games where you're basically a God aren't the standard for gameplay, games like Uncharted and God of War on higher difficulties are better for gameplay because of how hard they become and how desperate to overcome the situations you become. Not because if you hit a bunch of buttons in perfect sequence you do Godly combos like a Bayonetta. I run into this all the time where Platinum game fans think they're games of choice are the only way to handle deep gameplay, but they're wrong. What makes games like Uncharted and TLOU deep for me is the same shit that made the original Halo or Gears deep, the options available that you have to take advantage of on higher difficulties. The strats you're forced to come up with.
I don't need to give anything a rest because of your opinion.
The last few Gears and Halo entries are pretty generic without even removing anything. They've not advanced at all as franchises besides the small details they copy from their rivals. Like Halo copying Call of Duty or Gears copying Uncharted/God of War. Since many people played TLOU multiplayer, many people played the horde type modes in Uncharted games and many people did all the optional combat stuff in God of War your ideas pretty much fall flat on their face. It wasn't generic to us and I guarantee if you linked us to your trophies you have none for higher difficulties, the optional content or for the multiplayer/co-op modes. But hey, try and prove me wrong, please.
I feel like "interactive movies" is kinder and in a way a compliment, since the presentation and at times the narration really does shine in those games, calling them uninteresting works only if you are only interested in the gameplay aspect of a production.
It's not that having cut scenes and cool characters is bad, it's more that Sony (and others) do it in a way that gets in the way of the game. A lot of the time they just try too hard to be cinematic, kind of like what Kojima does with his games, even though he'll never be a competent director that'll ever get recognition from Hollywood. The other thing is walking/pointless sections, and this is perhaps the biggest annoying thing. I understand transitions where they do it intentionally to hide loading times, but when they make you intentionally walk for cinematic bullshit is where I basically lose my patience. GoW was a prime example with ample walking or pointless running sections, and also that stupid part with the hog that had no story significance in the end (unless I missed a side quest). They made you go around picking flowers for crying out loud (I can understand them trying to be funny, but it was idiotic).
How does it get in the way?
Kojima has already bested Hollywood multiple times, no need for their approval or recognition.
Even in the original Doom you had to walk from place to place sometimes, like WTF is this criticism of sections where you walk somewhere? The funniest part is many of you GAMEPLAY FIRST people play open world games, think about all the walking in those!
It had no story significance
your meeting with the mother of the villain?
lol ok. Most the traversal that occurred in GoW was because it was a genuine hub world where you actually had to traverse to each location and had secondary locations to explore, some weird complaints.
Gears basically perfected the cover based shooter mechanic.
Pro level gears gameplay is super hardcore.
If i need to even explain how gears is really gameplay heavy. You need to watch some pro level tournaments online first.
Tlou ,god of war and uncharted is nothing like that.
And that is just fine. Different games.
Halo perfected MP shooter online for consoles.
Gameplay is everything in that game.
Now go finish MCC soon they will remake reach too.
Holy crap, it perfected it??? Absolutely not, games where you easily move in and of cover like Uncharted and the newer Tomb Raiders totally improved what Gears began. Gears is still a sticky cover game where the awkwardness and clunkiness results in more deaths than actual challenge. It was the game that POPULARIZED using a cover mechanic, but the mechanic was used to cover up how much they had to load content into the game, they needed the player stationary as often as possible. In games like Uncharted and Tomb Raider being stationary behind cover is impossible on higher difficulties because enemies actually flank you, toss grenades and it even has cover degradation.
If your argument for Gears being gameplay heavy is the multiplayer component it's really weird you'd ignore the existence of Uncharted co-op modes, competitive modes and TLOU competitive modes, almost like they ruin your argument.
You keep using this word perfected, it popularized multiplayer and started matchmaking. The idea that to this day the Halo franchise represents the perfect console MP experience, even for the shooter genre, is honestly laughable and is easily disprove by player numbers, twitch views, etc.
No its super simple i finished TLOU,god of war and uncharted. Yes all of them. I never went back after finishing those games because the gameplay was rather weak. And once i have seen the story that's it. No more surprises to me.
There are some story heavy games like metal gear solid that also have deep and good gameplay. And guess what i replay those games from time to time. I had ZERO interest in buying uncharted 1 - 3 remakes on ps4. Cause i knew the stories.
Meanwhile i keep coming back to gears and halo for the great gameplay. This has nothing to do with MP. It's the deep gameplay mechanics that keep me playing them.
Diablo 3 is an amazing example i don't know anyone that liked the story. But most of them clocked over 500+ hours min on the game anyway.
When you gonna show us your trophies, though so we can see you beat them on easy?
What made MGS games deeper than the games in question, exactly?
What's deep about the gameplay mechanics in Halo? Like, I think Halo is deep but not MECHANICALLY deep. What does that even mean? Same with Gears.
Diablo 3 is among the most mindless games until you reach higher difficulty levels and the endgame, but that's dozens of hours of totally mindless gameplay before you can play anything substantial. Way more time needs to be invested before seeing anything deep than simply putting the Sony games on a higher setting, even on a second play you'd be reaching the content faster than Diablo 3 offers it.
Not everybody has the time or will to invest in deep and complex games.
Most people actually prefer to mash buttons in GoW and get a pretty light show, over slaving away in DMC5 in order to internalize that tight style switching combo.
How the hell do you link a 50 min video of a guy explaining how to streamline and simplify a melee system as much as possible while still making it cinematic as a means of displaying how deep the mechanics are? The other half of the video talks about impact, sync and other related things, which does not equate to the combat being any more deep. For the player, you're still just mashing X to do shit.
The last of us is NOT made to be a deep mechanically driven game. And that is fine, you don't have to claim it is. It's a game with a focus on the Hollywood story with very basic gameplay concepts disguised with animation techniques to make it more flashy.
Who the hell still talks about ryse or quantum break? I've seen literally no-one claiming that Ryse is some masterpiece in combat design. And for a good reason. Meanwhile, we have this thread.
This is some bait right here. What exactly makes for "deep" stealth mechanics? TLOU's simplicity is part of what makes it challenging. You can't just launch yourself into the air and shoot everyone's heads off while 360 no-scoping, the game is about survival. The higher the difficulty the more different tactics are required to learn how to survive. You guys with your button combos = depth probably never played a game like XCOM, lol or anything turn-based. Hey man, Dawn of War franchise is so simple, you don't even attack the units do it automatically! I don't know what strategy is!
You're really outing yourself comparing a game like Ryse to TLOU.
I've replayed all the mainline Halos SOOOOO many times, and while I love the stories and the lore, I know them all by heart now. It's the amazing gameplay that brings me back and it's the only game I have the patience to play on legendary because it's so damn good.
I didn't play the New God of War so I can't comment, but with the ND games it felt like what gameplay there was just got in the way of the story and set pieces.
DForce
"Last of Us, Uncharted and God of War has deeper gameplay mechanics than Halo and Gears. "
Again, I need to ask, what makes the MECHANICS of Halo or Gears deep? If you feel the gameplay is just in the way of the story/set pieces that's a personal problem btw.
Be kind to the salty fanboys people, they've had a rough last few years, and the next 12 months are going to be agony as Sony has an embarrassment of riches left to release.
You're arguing with people who want to tell you that several multi-million selling, many time GOTY winning (not just nominees, but winners) titles are not "real" games... their assertions start off flying in the face of historical fact and they have no persuasive argument to prop up their contrarianism with
Be kind to the salty fanboys people, they've had a rough last few years, and the next 12 months are going to be agony as Sony has an embarrassment of riches left to release.
You're arguing with people who want to tell you that several multi-million selling, many time GOTY winning (not just nominees, but winners) titles are not "real" games... their assertions start off flying in the face of historical fact and they have no persuasive argument to prop up their contrarianism with
This is the new-age meme that everyone used to use in the mid-2000's to Nintendo being "kiddy games" and "we grew up" when they were all highly rated and selling well, and still do.
It is now Sony's turn, as annoying as the fanaticism shifts are to popularity.
Congrats, you just outed yourself as a shitposter who didn't even play a single minute of any of the games you shit on, you could've just said it wasn't your cup of tea and moved on.
What an absolute embarrassment of a call-out. After one page of me trying to get that guy to talk to me, constantly deflecting and telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm the shitposter here? Try and prove me wrong, but don't come with this crap.
You guys with your button combos = depth probably never played a game like XCOM, lol or anything turn-based. Hey man, Dawn of War franchise is so simple, you don't even attack the units do it automatically! I don't know what strategy is!
I knew that was the only thing that you would latch on from that whole post
Here's what you're claiming. That the single-player is even less mechanically complex than the multiplayer. And what are we talking about here, view flinching? C'mon now. Not only do you think that this is somehow note-worthy but you think it's revolutionary for some reason.
FINALLY, We have an answer to my question. After 3 fucking posts of deflecting.
Here :
Stealth Mechanics: Absolute run-of-the-mill AAA game stealth mechanic. Literally no thought required.
Upgrading\crafting system: Alcohol + cloth = med kit .
Melee combat : Press X to awesome. Press triangle to block. Wow.
Here's the thing. In the quote above you are not claiming that they are mechanically complex. Because they aren't, and you know you can't defend it, but instead what you're trying to do is claim that all of these mechanics together are somehow making this deep game which it isn't. And it will never be.
And if you do think that the above mechanics are complex than, I don't know, I guess you need to play more video games.
I knew that was the only thing that you would latch on from that whole post
Here's what you're claiming. That the single-player is even less mechanically complex than the multiplayer. And what are we talking about here, view flinching? C'mon now. Not only do you think that this is somehow note-worthy but you think it's revolutionary for some reason
Wrong. You said the game was NOT designed to have deep mechanics. You replied to my post and I responded by talking about the game's entire gameplay mechanics.
Once again, you're trying to ignore the multiplayer. You refuse to acknowledge it because it destroys your entire theory.
Try to avoid it all you want, it just shows that you're wrong.
Stealth Mechanics: Absolute run-of-the-mill AAA game stealth mechanic. Literally no thought required.
No, you cannot melee all enemies by just pressing X. You will die if you try to melee combat clickers without withing in your hand. You can sneak by taking them out with a shiv, using a wood\bat\pipe or an upgraded version of that.
Compared to Resident Evil 2, you can use your knife only or use your knife to keep yourself from getting grabbed by an enemy.
Gears of War has melee weapons.
Result: There is a lot more you can do in terms of Melee combat in The Last of Us compared to Gears and Resident Evil 2.
If there is more then that means its DEEPER.
This is something you fail to comprehend.
Lets not forget that The Last of Us Online has Survival Skills in which you can use.
Almost each one has 3 levels to use, which means deeper mechanics.
Example:
Level 1 - Smoke Bombs and Bombs have a slightly shorter fuse when thrown.
Level 2 - Placed bombs, thrown smoke bombs and bombs have an even shorter fuse.
Level 3 - You are immune to the stun of your own smoke bombs. Placed bombs, thrown smoke bombs and bombs have a very short fuse
This brings different elements to the game. This is just one of the survival skills out of many.
Kills your narrative that the game was not designed to have deep mechanics.
Now if you to talk about only single player (I know you're doing this after finding out that MP was much deeper), then you will still lose the argument.
You guys really don't know what you're talking about.
What an absolute embarrassment of a call-out. After one page of me trying to get that guy to talk to me, constantly deflecting and telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm the shitposter here? Try and prove me wrong, but don't come with this crap.
If you want to make that claim, that's fine, I don't care. But don't claim the game is deep.
TLOU is a survival game now? Okay. Than I can start comparing it's systems to actual survival games like Neo Scavenger, right?
Wtf are we even talking about here? Are we in the same thread here?
The fucking post that I was quoting mentioned ryse. What did I oust myself as? Do you think that I'm an xbox fanboy
Depends on the depth you mean, simplicity in mechanics doesn't mean gameplay can't be deep.
Never heard of Neo Scavenger but I mean survival horror when I say survival.
Best to read what I'm responding to to figure out what I mean but the point is the number of buttons you hit to perform an action in a game isn't the sole decider of depth.
Your "meanwhile we have this thread" has a certain suggestion behind it, regardless of who brought up Ryse.
Be kind to the salty fanboys people, they've had a rough last few years, and the next 12 months are going to be agony as Sony has an embarrassment of riches left to release.
You're arguing with people who want to tell you that several multi-million selling, many time GOTY winning (not just nominees, but winners) titles are not "real" games... their assertions start off flying in the face of historical fact and they have no persuasive argument to prop up their contrarianism with
they are interactive movies because they have all the stuff a movie has (linear script, Hollywood actors, soundtrack director of photograph, etc etc) plus gameplay kill rooms, simplistic platforming, and or easy puzzles. And that is okay because millions find them entertaining.
Well Kojima's stuff is labelled A Hideo Kojima Game and it still falls foul under the terms of the same fallacious rationale that's being used against Naughty Dog's product. So no, I blame the fools pushing the same nonsensical line of argument!
A strong story element is additive to the gameplay experience. Its not an either/or case. You can have both without sacrificing quality in gameplay or narrative.
they are interactive movies because they have all the stuff a movie has (linear script, Hollywood actors, soundtrack director of photograph, etc etc) plus gameplay kill rooms, simplistic platforming, and or easy puzzles. And that is okay because millions find them entertaining.
Some people just call them movies and leave the word interactive by the wayside. Part of my personal problem with it is that I like the games for the gameplay first and the story second. The story enhances a good gameplay experience, it isn't the reason I play.
Well Kojima's stuff is labelled A Hideo Kojima Game and it still falls foul under the terms of the same fallacious rationale that's being used against Naughty Dog's product. So no, I blame the fools pushing the same nonsensical line of argument!
A strong story element is additive to the gameplay experience. Its not an either/or case. You can have both without sacrificing quality in gameplay or narrative.
they are interactive movies because they have all the stuff a movie has (linear script, Hollywood actors, soundtrack director of photograph, etc etc) plus gameplay kill rooms, simplistic platforming, and or easy puzzles. And that is okay because millions find them entertaining.
Some people just call them movies and leave the word interactive by the wayside. Part of my personal problem with it is that I like the games for the gameplay first and the story second. The story enhances a good gameplay experience, it isn't the reason I play.
i think it comes down to the fact that games have more cultural cache. No one gets respect or can make a living out of playing interactive entertainment, but they can playing football, chess, or some esport video game.
When people call games "Interactive movies" they are usually referring to the feeling that you are just being led around until the next cutscene trigger.
For example. Naughty Dog games have a very set structure.
1. Cut-scene leading to area.
2. Player enters small area littered with enemies or abstacles.
3. Player clears enemies or scales obstacles in area. Triggering next cut-scene.
4. Cut-scene then plays, leading to next area.
5. Repeat 2-3.
It's that linear structure that feels automatic and repetitive. Making it feel like you have no real control over what is happening. Hence, an interactive movie.
As to why people accuse Sony of this more? Well, they just have more story-driven games with this style of structure, I suppose.
Can you tell me of many games that don't have some time of high tension, less tension/exploration loop? I mean, even the Ubisoft (and pretty much all open world games) have that. You play a bit, get in a fight, explore the world (well, walk up to the next map pointer), get some more action, maybe trigger some cut scene? Even Doom 2016, Half Life 2, Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, the Halo games, etc. are all in this very broad category. Unless you reach for Tetris or some racing game there is always a level of action + pacing in a game, even the 2d old school ones.
i think it comes down to the fact that games have more cultural cache. No one gets respect or can make a living out of playing interactive entertainment, but they can playing football, chess, or some esport video game.
This is an interesting way of phrasing it, it's true Sony first party titles aren't aiming for the esports market. I just see a lot of grey area in between being an esport and being a Telltale game.
Wrong. You said the game was NOT designed to have deep mechanics. You replied to my post and I responded by talking about the game's entire gameplay mechanics.
Once again, you're trying to ignore the multiplayer. You refuse to acknowledge it because it destroys your entire theory.
Try to avoid it all you want, it just shows that you're wrong.
It doesn't. Even with the multiplayer, which is clearly not the main focus of the series, the gameplay still doesn't rise up to much. Which you try to bring up again later with that laughable linear upgrade tree.
That is absolutely not how this works and it's the whole crux of your argument. You try to find things that TLOU tries to do that those SPECIFIC two games don't and claim. "Well, this is why my game is complex"
Do you hear yourself? Do you understand why your logic is flawed?
Best to read what I'm responding to to figure out what I mean but the point is the number of buttons you hit to perform an action in a game isn't the sole decider of depth.
Normally I'd agree. Except for when you purposefully cut down on mechanics in order to fit everything in as few buttons as you can.
The comparison with Dawn of War is also not great, as if you play the game like it's intended you are most definitely going to use more buttons than most games. This is true for most RTS.
Your "meanwhile we have this thread" has a certain suggestion behind it, regardless of who brought up Ryse.
The point was that I haven't seen anyone defend ryse's mechanics because it's generally understood that the game is more visual than mechanical. Yet TLOU has some pretty ardent defenders.
