Support NeoGAF

[jem0208]

Nope.

Not with this game's first three hours.

It's also not 8-10 hours long, by the way. Perhaps the youtube videos you were watching was skipping plenty of sections.

Not in the case of The Last Of Us.
The point where the gameplay really started to take off was a few hours into the game.
It got better and better and definitely peaked in Winter, imo.

Its definitely among the best gameplays I ever played and combined with the amazing story, characters and settings it makes The Last Of Us the best game of all time, in my opinion.
I've been equally blow away by other games, for example Mario64, because it was groundbreaking, but TLoU broke another, even higher ground. (if that makes sense in english)

I just edited my post but I didn't play through the start.

I watched the game on YouTube first then tried it out at a friend's to see how the game played.

It was good but definitely not some of the best gameplay I have ever played. Like I said I'd give it a solid 8.

 

[Hubb]

I think it's a damn fine game and the issues that the game tackles, it tackles very well. It also has better gunplay mechanics than Uncharted so I will gladly replay that over Uncharted. Shame about how trash multiplayer is.

That being said it's incredibly overhyped. People treat it like the second coming lol

Uncharted MPs trash or TLoU is? You might be the first person I've heard read call TLoU's MP trash.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Not in the case of The Last Of Us.
The point where the gameplay really started to take off was a few hours into the game.
It got better and better and definitely peaked in Winter, imo.

Its definitely among the best gameplays I ever played and combined with the amazing story, characters and settings it makes The Last Of Us the best game of all time, in my opinion.
I've been equally blow away by other games, for example Mario64, because it was groundbreaking, but TLoU broke another, even higher ground. (if that makes sense in english)

I have trouble seeing how you can go from "it takes a few hours for it to become good" to "best game of all time". All the games I consider GOAT are consistent throughout, and don't force me to slog through the first three hours to get to the good stuff.

 

[jon bones]

I have trouble seeing how you can go from "it takes a few hours for it to become good" to "best game of all time". All the games I consider GOAT are consistent throughout, and don't force me to slog through the first three hours to get to the good stuff.

he didn't say "it takes a few hours for it to become good" so i'm not sure why you put it on quotes

and like many (most?) games, systems unfold and become fleshed out, your character upgrades and the gameplay really clicks. this happens in almost every great modern action title.

pacing it is important, and TLoU nails it (along with pretty much everything else it does)

In what way is TLOU groundbreaking? I greatly enjoyed the entire package but the gameplay is nothing revolutionary, especially compared to Mario 64.

If someone only plays mainstream games though, I guess I could see that since it's so different from the norm, in a good way.

yesssss milquetoast elitism

 

[antitrop]

I think it's a damn fine game and the issues that the game tackles, it tackles very well. It also has better gunplay mechanics than Uncharted so I will gladly replay that over Uncharted. Shame about how trash multiplayer is.

That being said it's incredibly overhyped. People treat it like the second coming lol

No. The Last of Us' multiplayer was the exact opposite of "tacked-on" shit in games like Tomb Raider and Spec Ops: The Line.

 

[Tagyhag]

Not in the case of The Last Of Us.
The point where the gameplay really started to take off was a few hours into the game.
It got better and better and definitely peaked in Winter, imo.

Its definitely among the best gameplays I ever played and combined with the amazing story, characters and settings it makes The Last Of Us the best game of all time, in my opinion.
I've been equally blow away by other games, for example Mario64, because it was groundbreaking, but TLoU broke another, even higher ground. (if that makes sense in english)

In what way is TLOU groundbreaking? I greatly enjoyed the entire package but the gameplay is nothing revolutionary, especially compared to Mario 64.

If someone only plays mainstream games though, I guess I could see that since it's so different from the norm, in a good way.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

I have trouble seeing how you can go from "it takes a few hours for it to become good" to "best game of all time". All the games I consider GOAT are consistent throughout, and don't force me to slog through the first three hours to get to the good stuff.

It's not a TV series, you have to learn the game mechanics as well; it takes time to build character, atmosphere and background while teaching you the skills you need for survival.

It starts off great, then just gets better.

And by the way, you totally misquoted that poster to make your point.

If someone only plays mainstream games though, I guess I could see that since it's so different from the norm, in a good way.

Nice thinly-veiled insult: If you love TLoU, it's probably because you've probably never played anything decent! Mario 64 brought platforming into a 3D space, TLoU took story-based games to a new more-consistent level (character development outside of cut scenes, actor performance and motion capture) and since you said 'it's so different from the norm [in the case of mainstream games]' I'm guessing you agree.

 

[Silky]

Uncharted MPs trash or TLoU is? You might be the first person I've heard read call TLoU's MP trash.

No. The Last of Us' multiplayer was the exact opposite of "tacked-on" shit in games like Tomb Raider and Spec Ops: The Line.

Well both. UC3's MP I dropped pretty quickly. TLoU MP suffers from really poor map design and weapon balancing. Which is a shame because the mechanics/actual gunplay strategy is awesome. Shame that the supposed good maps of TLoU are gated by DLC. Then again ND's strong point in regards to MP was never clever map design outside of the Train maps in UC3.

Sure TLoU MP had more effort put in than Spec Ops and Tomb Raider. Doesn't excuse the obvious flaws it had.

 

[antitrop]

Well both. UC3's MP I dropped pretty quickly. TLoU MP suffers from really poor map design and weapon balancing. Which is a shame because the mechanics/actual gunplay strategy is awesome. Shame that the supposed good maps of TLoU are gated by DLC. Then again ND's strong point in regards to MP was never clever map design outside of the Train maps in UC3.

Sure TLoU MP had more effort put in than Spec Ops and Tomb Raider. Doesn't excuse the obvious flaws it had.

Eh, guess I just disagree with your fast and loose use of the word 'trash'. Because calling it trash would put it on the same level as those 2 games that I named.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

I have trouble seeing how you can go from "it takes a few hours for it to become good" to "best game of all time". All the games I consider GOAT are consistent throughout, and don't force me to slog through the first three hours to get to the good stuff.

I thought the pacing was excellent. I didn't feel like the game was forcing me to "slog through" the first few hours. The first 2-3 hours introduced you to the world, the characters, the enemies and the gameplay.
The following 15 hours built upon that foundation.

I consider it the best game I ever played because no other game had such a lasting impression on me.

I have spent more time on other games, but I'd say the best 18 hours of my gaming life where the 18 hours my first playthrough of The Last Of Us took me.

After I finished I knew that I experienced quality that I will not experience again for a long, long time. That made me pretty sad.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

he didn't say "it takes a few hours for it to become good" so i'm not sure why you put it on quotes

and like many (most?) games, systems unfold and become fleshed out, your character upgrades and the gameplay really clicks. this happens in almost every great modern action title.

pacing it is important, and TLoU nails it (along with pretty much everything else it does)



yesssss milquetoast elitism

If you follow the comment chain back far enough, it's about some guy describing the first three hours of the game as "average". The assertion made by the Gigawatts is that if this guy played the game for a few more hours his opinion on it would go from "average" to "great" - but even then, I would argue that such a long time being just average would prevent the guy from declaring it GOAT.

Fwiw, I played through the entire thing and I felt like it was an above-average game, but nothing particularly stellar. Far better than Uncharted, though, so there's that.

 

[aygomyownroad]

My biggest complaint with TLOU was that there were too many human enemy sections, felt s bit too samey.

The infected sections were some of the most tense gaming moments from last generation.

The gameplay was rock solid I thought, and I hope naughty dog can create a sequel that can show resident evil what survival horror is all about

 

[Silky]

Eh, guess I just disagree with your fast and loose use of the word 'trash'. Because calling it trash would put it on the same level as those 2 games that I named.

I play a lot of TPS and one of the things I usually am critical of regarding it's multiplayer is it's gunplay/balancing/level design. I don't think said shooters are even servicable if two of those three are handled pretty poorly. :/

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Not really. The mechanics are above average, but there's a lot that bothers me. I hate how a majority of the game is fighting bandits

Spoiler

(I know "blah blah blah it's the message of the game, we're the monsters")

, and bandits are boring. Unfortunately, as much as I hate fighting the humans, I think the infected are horribly implemented, like 90% of the total infected in the game are clickers and they're way too annoying to fight for how many of them there are. It's not "oh man, I stumbled into a clicker den, better be careful" it's "fuck me, another clicker den?"
Some parts of the game dragged on a bit too long and others not enough.
The save system (at least when I played) was absolutely terrible.

I still think it's a great game and the it's certainly fun to play, but the story is its strong suit.

 

[hawk2025]

I just edited my post but I didn't play through the start.

I watched the game on YouTube first then tried it out at a friend's to see how the game played.

It was good but definitely not some of the best gameplay I have ever played. Like I said I'd give it a solid 8.

Haha, ok, sure

Not really. The mechanics are above average, but there's a lot that bothers me. I hate how a majority of the game is fighting bandits

Spoiler

(I know "blah blah blah it's the message of the game, we're the monsters")

, and bandits are boring. Unfortunately, as much as I hate fighting the humans, I think the infected are horribly implemented, like 90% of the total infected in the game are clickers and they're way too annoying to fight for how many of them there are. It's not "oh man, I stumbled into a clicker den, better be careful" it's "fuck me, another clicker den?"
Some parts of the game dragged on a bit too long and others not enough.
The save system (at least when I played) was absolutely terrible.

I still think it's a great game and the it's certainly fun to play, but the story is its strong suit.

That's completely false.

I play a lot of TPS and one of the things I usually am critical of regarding it's multiplayer is it's gunplay/balancing/level design. I don't think said shooters are even servicable if two of those three are handled pretty poorly. :/

Not trying to be snarky -- it's not a TPS, so perhaps your problem with the multiplayer is that you tried to play it as one? How much time did you give it to get the mechanics, map design, and communication down?

If you follow the comment chain back far enough, it's about some guy describing the first three hours of the game as "average". The assertion made by the Gigawatts is that if this guy played the game for a few more hours his opinion on it would go from "average" to "great" - but even then, I would argue that such a long time being just average would prevent the guy from declaring it GOAT.

Fwiw, I played through the entire thing and I felt like it was an above-average game, but nothing particularly stellar. Far better than Uncharted, though, so there's that.

The pacing is excellent, but it needs those few hours to build the foundation. At the risk of using inappropriate comparisons to other mediums: Infinite Jest isn't an average book because it takes 300-400 pages to speed up, The Wire isn't an average TV show because it takes half a season to build up the characters and the city of Baltimore.

With that said, I reject that the "first few hours" of any of these was just average.

 

[Hubb]

Not really. The mechanics are above average, but there's a lot that bothers me. I hate how a majority of the game is fighting bandits

Spoiler

(I know "blah blah blah it's the message of the game, we're the monsters")

, and bandits are boring. Unfortunately, as much as I hate fighting the humans, I think the infected are horribly implemented, like 90% of the total infected in the game are clickers and they're way too annoying to fight for how many of them there are. It's not "oh man, I stumbled into a clicker den, better be careful" it's "fuck me, another clicker den?"

That message might be A message in the game but it is not THE message they were trying to get across to you. If you can even break down into one clear message. Also if you were fighting all the clickers, that probably means you were attempting to sneak around at all.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

In what way is TLOU groundbreaking? I greatly enjoyed the entire package but the gameplay is nothing revolutionary, especially compared to Mario 64.

If someone only plays mainstream games though, I guess I could see that since it's so different from the norm, in a good way.

The Last Of Us was the first game that really connected narrative and gameplay. I've nevern seen something like that before and I didn't think something like that was possible in games.
For years I've been arguing that its impossible to tell very good stories in video games.
Mainly because interactivity is something you can't have in a good story. A good story is good because the characters are good. The characters are unique and deep and when players get to be such a character it doesn't work because you need to give some of the choice the characters would make and therby some of the identity of the characters to the player.
I still think David Cage is doing it wrong. You can't have a good story when you let the player decide what the characters should do. That shit makes your story and everything in it replacable and good stories aren't replacable.

So I thought a game needs compelling interactivity to be a good game and a good story can't have interactivity because you want to tell a story of characters that aren't the player.
So all I expected from games was good gameplay and maybe a entertaining, but flat, story. Like action or fantasy movies. Good action/fantasy, combined with some flat storytelling, ideally creating a deep universe, like LotR for example. Maybe some cliché characters some players might relate to, some standard motives like friendship, courage, honor, but nothing interesting overall.
And that was pretty much what I experienced in games and I was fine with that. I thought thats what the medium is capable of and I loved it.


NaughtyDog proved me wrong and showed me that videogames can be so much more that what they have been for the past decades.
They showed that you can have compelling gameplay(interactivity) that not only does no harm to the story and the characters, but also improves the experience.
NaughytDog didn't let the player make any important choices. The player isn't the one who should make choices, the characters are. Player choices would've destoyed the game.
NaughtyDog did let us play the characters, though. We could experience first hand what it is like to be up against a horde of hunters. What its like to be in a dark basement crawling with infected. What its like to know that you only have 2 bullets left and more enemies that you could possibly kill with two bullets.
The story became more intense because we experienced what the characters went through.
And the gameplay became more meaningful and intense because we had these great characters.

I don't think any other game achieved something comparable.


So yeah, the gameplay is nothing revolutionary. Its top notch 3rd person action gameplay. Its actually the most enjoable 3rd person action gameplay I played last gen(imo), but it does nothing groundbreaking when it comes to gameplay mechanics. But I don't think thats necessary for it to be the best game of all time.
The connection between gameplay and narrative was groundbreaking.

 

[Ajax35]

Well both. UC3's MP I dropped pretty quickly. TLoU MP suffers from really poor map design and weapon balancing. Which is a shame because the mechanics/actual gunplay strategy is awesome. Shame that the supposed good maps of TLoU are gated by DLC. Then again ND's strong point in regards to MP was never clever map design outside of the Train maps in UC3.

Sure TLoU MP had more effort put in than Spec Ops and Tomb Raider. Doesn't excuse the obvious flaws it had.

What weapons did you find to be unbalanced? I played most of my matches with just the revolver, and I didn't notice any particular balance issues.

 

[Silky]

Not trying to be snarky -- it's not a TPS, so perhaps your problem with the multiplayer is that you tried to play it as one? How much time did you give it to get the mechanics, map design, and communication down?

I don't understand what you mean by it not being a Third Person Shooter (because it's what it is--literally a third person shooter. A shooter played from a third person perspective.)
I played it for a full month, on it's first month of release with friends. I like the implementation of the crafting system, but shit like marking enemies when throwing grenades actually increases your overall throwing/shooting accuracy, weapons like the Enforcer being locked through actually purchasing the game via DLC (espcially how broken that gun is considering how valuable silenced weapons can be in the game), Molotovs being broken (1HKO and such a wide explosion spread.--even more than the nail bomb), and I feel that the melee weapons in the game are really underpowered. That being said the Burst Rifle is one of my favorite weapons in the game.

What weapons did you find to be unbalanced? I played most of my matches with just the revolver, and I didn't notice any particular balance issues.

Enforcer, Molotov, Semi-Auto, Specter, and obviously the Flamethrower. I also don't like how ND handled the balancing ebtween the double barrel and the traditional Shotgun. It doesn't make sense that the Shotgun has a much wider spread of fire range and does more damage than the gun that's intentionally designed to do more damage/have the higher damage spread. It's fucking stupid.

 

[Ajax35]

I don't understand what you mean by it not being a Third Person Shooter (because it's what it is--literally a third person shooter. A shooter played from a third person perspective.)

I played it for a full month, on it's first month of release with friends. I like the implementation of the crafting system, but shit like marking enemies when throwing grenades actually increases your overall throwing/shooting accuracy, weapons like the Enforcer being locked through actually purchasing the game (espcially how broken that gun is considering how valuable silenced weapons can be in the game), Molotovs being broken (1HKO and such a wide explosion spread.--even more than the nail bomb), and I feel that the melee weapons in the game are really underpowered. That being said the Burst Rifle is one of my favorite weapons in the game.

The Enforcer wasn't available during the first month of launch.

 

[Silky]

The Enforcer wasn't available during the first month of launch.

I've been recently playing the Grounded DLC.

Hmm, fair enough! Thanks for elaborating.

I disagree with a few of your points, but mostly because my approach to the multiplayer has been to stealth/flank first, shoot second, so it really doesn't play like a TPS at all for me. Other than, of course, featuring third person shooting as *part* of its many mechanics. But I definitely see where you're coming from.

Surprised you played trash for a full month, though!

Oh, don't get me wrong, I like to invest time in a lot of shooters. It takes me around 1-3 months to really get an opinion across of a MP game so I don't write it off entirely.

With TLOU MP I think the game succeeded in making something like the Pistol work really well as a sidearm. Not many TPSes do that for me. Really good for downing enemies. TLOU MP is also one of the few shooters that make running/shooting work with advantages/drawbacks. Every shot has weight and dimension to it.

I think I would be interested in seeing a TLOU2 MP if they fixed rthe weapon balancing, and don't bar weapons behind DLC barriers.

 

[hawk2025]

I don't understand what you mean by it not being a Third Person Shooter (because it's what it is--literally a third person shooter. A shooter played from a third person perspective.)
I played it for a full month, on it's first month of release with friends. I like the implementation of the crafting system, but shit like marking enemies when throwing grenades actually increases your overall throwing/shooting accuracy, weapons like the Enforcer being locked through actually purchasing the game via DLC (espcially how broken that gun is considering how valuable silenced weapons can be in the game), Molotovs being broken (1HKO and such a wide explosion spread.--even more than the nail bomb), and I feel that the melee weapons in the game are really underpowered. That being said the Burst Rifle is one of my favorite weapons in the game.



Enforcer, Molotov, Semi-Auto, Specter, and obviously the Flamethrower. I also don't like how ND handled the balancing ebtween the double barrel and the traditional Shotgun. It doesn't make sense that the Shotgun has a much wider spread of fire range and does more damage than the gun that's intentionally designed to do more damage/have the higher damage spread. It's fucking stupid.

Hmm, fair enough! Thanks for elaborating.

I disagree with a few of your points, but mostly because my approach to the multiplayer has been to stealth/flank first, shoot second, so it really doesn't play like a TPS at all for me. Other than, of course, featuring third person shooting as *part* of its many mechanics. But I definitely see where you're coming from, and that you probably played the multiplayer more than me.

Surprised you played trash for a full month, though! Including DLC, wow!

Oh, don't get me wrong, I like to invest time in a lot of shooters. It takes me around 1-3 months to really get an opinion across of a MP game so I don't write it off entirely.

With TLOU MP I think the game succeeded in making something like the Pistol work really well as a sidearm. Not many TPSes do that for me. Really good for downing enemies. TLOU MP is also one of the few shooters that make running/shooting work with advantages/drawbacks. Every shot has weight and dimension to it.

I think I would be interested in seeing a TLOU2 MP if they fixed rthe weapon balancing, and don't bar weapons behind DLC barriers.

Yep, that's why I really, really loved it. It felt weighty and with... presence. Consequences to your actions.

But I get it now, I completely understand that as you REALLY dug deep into it the things that niggled you, it started ruining the experience. And that's totally understandable!

 

[Tekku]

The Last Of Us was the first game that really connected narrative and gameplay. I've nevern seen something like that before and I didn't think something like that was possible in games.
For years I've been arguing that its impossible to tell very good stories in video games.
Mainly because interactivity is something you can't have in a good story. A good story is good because the characters are good. The characters are unique and deep and when players get to be such a character it doesn't work because you need to give some of the choice the characters would make and therby some of the identity of the characters to the player.
I still think David Cage is doing it wrong. You can't have a good story when you let the player decide what the characters should do. That shit makes your story and everything in it replacable and good stories aren't replacable.

So I thought a game needs compelling interactivity to be a good game and a good story can't have interactivity because you want to tell a story of characters that aren't the player.
So all I expected from games was good gameplay and maybe a entertaining, but flat, story. Like action or fantasy movies. Good action/fantasy, combined with some flat storytelling, ideally creating a deep universe, like LotR for example. Maybe some cliché characters some players might relate to, some standard motives like friendship, courage, honor, but nothing interesting overall.
And that was pretty much what I experienced in games and I was fine with that. I thought thats what the medium is capable of and I loved it.


NaughtyDog proved me wrong and showed me that videogames can be so much more that what they have been for the past decades.
They showed that you can have compelling gameplay(interactivity) that not only does no harm to the story and the characters, but also improves the experience.
NaughytDog didn't let the player make any important choices. The player isn't the one who should make choices, the characters are. Player choices would've destoyed the game.
NaughtyDog did let us play the characters, though. We could experience first hand what it is like to be up against a horde of hunters. What its like to be in a dark basement crawling with infected. What its like to know that you only have 2 bullets left and more enemies that you could possibly kill with two bullets.
The story became more intense because we experienced what the characters went through.
And the gameplay became more meaningful and intense because we had these great characters.

I don't think any other game achieved something comparable.


So yeah, the gameplay is nothing revolutionary. Its top notch 3rd person action gameplay. Its actually the most enjoable 3rd person action gameplay I played last gen(imo), but it does nothing groundbreaking when it comes to gameplay mechanics. But I don't think thats necessary for it to be the best game of all time.
The connection between gameplay and narrative was groundbreaking.

In my opinion the gameplay was pretty disconnected from the character stories because it did little to put you in the same stressful situations as them. And I'm not talking about fending off hordes of enemies with only a couple of bullets left, I'm talking about the reality of true survival where you overcome impossible odds and try to satisfy very basic needs with desperate methods. The Last of Us had almost nothing of that, even though it told a story about characters that lived that kind of life. I liked the game overall, but I cannot say that I felt a good symbiotic relationship between the gameplay and the story that was told. The gameplay kinda pulled me out of the experience most of the time.

 

[jem0208]

Haha, ok, sure

Don't believe me if you like but I stand by what I said.

It's a good but not fantastic game with an excellently presented but predictable story. It's strengths lie in the presentation and atmosphere. If you're not interested in those then I don't think the game is particularly worth it.

 

[Cave Johnson]

In my opinion the gameplay was pretty disconnected from the character stories because it did little to put you in the same stressful situations as them. And I'm not talking about fending off hordes of enemies with only a couple of bullets left, I'm talking about the reality of true survival where you overcome impossible odds and try to satisfy very basic needs with desperate methods. The Last of Us had almost nothing of that, even though it told a story about characters that lived that kind of life. I liked the game overall, but I cannot say that I felt a good symbiotic relationship between the gameplay and the story that was told. The gameplay kinda pulled me out of the experience most of the time.

Which is why we have games like DayZ; correcting that dissonance you are emphasizing about.

 

[Tagyhag]

And by the way, you totally misquoted that poster to make your point.

Nice thinly-veiled insult: If you love TLoU, it's probably because you've probably never played anything decent!

Folks, if this is not irony, I don't know what is.

If you re-read my post, you will notice that I never said anything like that. Considering I even said I greatly enjoyed the game, I would be insulting myself no? Besides, thinking that just because someone only plays mainstream games is an insult speaks about the insecurities of the person themselves.

I was talking about calling the gameplay revolutionary, but Gigawatts clarified it.

So yeah, the gameplay is nothing revolutionary. Its top notch 3rd person action gameplay. Its actually the most enjoable 3rd person action gameplay I played last gen(imo), but it does nothing groundbreaking when it comes to gameplay mechanics. But I don't think thats necessary for it to be the best game of all time.
The connection between gameplay and narrative was groundbreaking.

Thanks for taking your time with such a great post!

You're definitely right, groundbreaking is not necessary for a game to be considered GOAT (Although I would argue that there is no basis at all, since ultimately it's an opinion)

And as far as the connection to gameplay and narrative, I thought it was great, but it just wasn't deep enough for myself to consider it groundbreaking. (But again, I would consider what someone classifies as groundbreaking is also an opinion.)

The survival aspect didn't have the depth that I would have liked (It was post-apocalyptic survival, but it was pretty much only told with combat) and the narrative/characters and writing (While pretty good for video game standards) weren't as amazing as I was expecting due to the reviews and accolades.

I mean, we've had games like Half-Life try to push the boundaries of storytelling by blurring the story with gameplay. (No cutscenes was great, but the stories themselves were mediocre and your character, for better or for worse depending on who you ask, is just a hollow shell.)

There's other games to talk about regarding groundbreaking mixing of both gameplay and narrative like System Shock 2, Homeworld, The Longest Journey, Planescape etc. But you made a solid point with TLOU, and at the end, it really does boil down to opinion.

 

[Meier]

It's a helluva lot better than the Uncharted series, that's for sure.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

In my opinion the gameplay was pretty disconnected from the character stories because it did little to put you in the same stressful situations as them. And I'm not talking about fending off hordes of enemies with only a couple of bullets left, I'm talking about the reality of true survival where you overcome impossible odds and try to satisfy very basic needs with desperate methods. The Last of Us had almost nothing of that, even though it told a story about characters that lived that kind of life. I liked the game overall, but I cannot say that I felt a good symbiotic relationship between the gameplay and the story that was told. The gameplay kinda pulled me out of the experience most of the time.

The characters should have spent more time cooking, eating and dying of cholera than pissing around bricking walking plants in the head.

 

[DarkoMaledictus]

Got to a graveyard and never touched it again. Battles seemed more about stealth and hiding and I got bored with it. Game was just not for me!

 

[Sacul64GC]

I felt the the stealth was bit bit lacking in that for a game based around sound based enemies you had no ability to tap on walls. Is one of the reasons why Bioshock Infinite went higher on my list was that I loved both games stories but in game play tossing flaming crows at people felt better then some of the stealth in Last of Us. Granted it was still in the top 5, (Wonderfull 101, Bioshock, Link Between Worlds, 3D World, Last of Us) for me that year.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

I felt the the stealth was bit bit lacking in that for a game based around sound based enemies you had no ability to tap on walls. Is one of the reasons why Bioshock Infinite went higher on my list was that I loved both games stories but in game play tossing flaming crows at people felt better then some of the stealth in Last of Us. Granted it was still in the top 5, (Wonderfull 101, Bioshock, Link Between Worlds, 3D World, Last of Us) for me that year.

You can throw bricks, bottles and molotovs (for comedy bonfire shenanigans) in lieu of tapping on walls though.

Folks, if this is not irony, I don't know what is.

I might have misinterpreted what you said, but I didn't attribute a direct quote to you, so not really irony I'm afraid.

 

[Wynnebeck]

Got to a graveyard and never touched it again. Battles seemed more about stealth and hiding and I got bored with it. Game was just not for me!

lol You haven't even gotten far enough in the game to even say it is only about stealth and hiding. Some of these posts in here are pretty funny.

 

[Silky]

It's a helluva lot better than the Uncharted series, that's for sure.

I will preach this to the ends of the Earth. The Last of Us reaffirmed to me that Naughty Dog was capable of making really good games.

 

[Sacul64GC]

You can throw bricks, bottles and molotovs (for comedy bonfire shenanigans) in lieu of tapping on walls though.

I know I can but there were times where taping would have been better certain situations that made it stand out as missing to me. I still liked the game and plan on getting it on PS4.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

I know I can but there were times where taping would have been better certain situations that made it stand out as missing to me. I still liked the game and plan on getting it on PS4.

I can't think of any situation where tapping trumps a molotov.

 

[JumpJeff84]

I for one loved the gameplay. I've always been a fan of killing people stealthily, and TLOU delivered. Can't wait to replay it on PS4

 

[DSN2K]

I will preach this to the ends of the Earth. The Last of Us reaffirmed to me that Naughty Dog was capable of making really good games.

I find it hard to believe somebody can differentiate that much between their games. There is mostly the same strength/weaknesses in both.

 

[Ridill]

I don't see the need to convince those that don't love the game otherwise. Like everything else in this world, people have their own opinions. While The Last of Us has had massive, critical acclaim, not everyone will agree.

That being said, I'm on the side that loves the game. I loved the story first and foremost, and will say that the gameplay was pretty solid on top of that. Unfortunately, my PS3 died before I had a chance to finish my run through Survivor mode, and I never got to try the Left Behind DLC which makes me a sad puppy.

 

[NastyBook]

We've been through this a lot throughout the thread, and the OP has clearly stated this wasn't the intention, so let's not try not to take it down that path again. That's not to say it doesn't happen, because it blatantly does, but give the OP the benefit of the doubt this time.

Guess I should've mentioned that I didn't necessarily mean OP since he did explain himself later on. Sorry.

 

[DarkoMaledictus]

lol You haven't even gotten far enough in the game to even say it is only about stealth and hiding. Some of these posts in here are pretty funny.

True, but I usually give the game a few hours before I come to a decision and the clock had run out, was just not having fun with it, felt more like a chore to me.

 

[Neuromancer]

It's a helluva lot better than the Uncharted series, that's for sure.

It really is. Sometimes it's hard for me to reconcile that this is the same studio given how much I loved TLOU and how irritated I was with Uncharted 2. (Never bothered playing 1 or 3, I'd had enough.)

 

[RoboPlato]

What?

I played for about 3 hours so I know how the gameplay handles and feels. I then watched the full thing so I know how the story goes and what the presentation is like.

I'd say that's enough to get a pretty good opinion on the game. Never touched the MP though.


I'd agree this wouldn't be enough to make a judgement on something like an MMO or Skyrim etc. However for an 8-10 hour single player campaign it's easily enough to make a reasonably informed decision.

I've never played a single game where just watching a Youtube video will do justice to it. Not a Quantic Dream game, not a Telltale game, nothing. So much of this game's narrative and thematic tension comes out during the late game encounters and if you aren't properly invested and participating in it you lose a significant portion of what makes those sequences special and memorable.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

Guess I should've mentioned that I didn't necessarily mean OP since he did explain himself later on. Sorry.

You don't need to apologise mate, especially not to me

 

[jem0208]

I've never played a single game where just watching a Youtube video will do justice to it. Not a Quantic Dream game, not a Telltale game, nothing. So much of this game's narrative and thematic tension comes out during the late game encounters and if you aren't properly invested and participating in it you lose a significant portion of what makes those sequences special and memorable.

I thought the atmosphere was fantastic though and probably the best aspect of the game. It came across perfectly fine just watching. The general presentation of the story was superb. The story itself I felt was a tad too predictable though and could have been a bit more ambitious.

I just felt the basic gameplay was pretty standard and not particularly amazing.

 

[Comfort Jones]

Are you kidding me? MGS has so many ways to just hide and wait until everyone forgets a suspect was even seen. If you're not going for a perfectionist ghost playthrough you can get caught as any times as you'd like and not suffer for it. In tlou you're more vulnerable, you can't even "pause" and use items at will. Crafting and healing is done in real time. In MGS you have a whole arsenal at your disposal and can change it while the world around you waits for it. Ammo is more scarce..no silencers, just the bow.. and you can't hide bodies either (though i wouldn't call this one a pro)

In MGS2, after the enemies stop looking for you, it's basically a position reset. In TLoU none of the enemies you kill will be replaced. Yes the enemies keep looking for you but as I mentioned they aren't exactly effective about it, splitting up so you can pick them up. not to mention it's really not that hard to choke them out by hiding behind a wall and grabbing one by the front. Any time I was caught and needed to fight, it was way easier to deal with enemies than it is in MGS2 seeing how much easier and basic the combat is, and once again like I said enemies don't respawn, so if you have picked off enough guys you can pretty much take out the rest with ease.

It's like you keep trying to brush past the fact that no matter what the enemies aren't actually punishing the player for getting caught. Them going from super easy to pick off mode to really basic search for the player/third person shooter mode is not a significant punish. It's not exactly a radically hard thing to get away from them to get them in their super basic search mode, and due to the lack of any reset it basically encouraged me to continually use stealth to just pick them off and then run away when caught. The tactic literally worked all the way from the very beginning to the very end. If you wanted to take out every guy in a room in MGS2 with stealth you'd need to make you're never caught and that you cover your tracks. TLoU doesn't even let you cover your tracks and it doesn't even really matter all that much when they do find bodies, they just slightly change their pathing, oh boy what a hard punish.

 

[hawk2025]

In MGS2, after the enemies stop looking for you, it's basically a position reset. In TLoU none of the enemies you kill will be replaced. Yes the enemies keep looking for you but as I mentioned they aren't exactly effective about it, splitting up so you can pick them up. not to mention it's really not that hard to choke them out by hiding behind a wall and grabbing one by the front. Any time I was caught and needed to fight, it was way easier to deal with enemies than it is in MGS2 seeing how much easier and basic the combat is, and once again like I said enemies don't respawn, so if you have picked off enough guys you can pretty much take out the rest with ease.

It's like you keep trying to brush past the fact that no matter what the enemies aren't actually punishing the player for getting caught. Them going from super easy to pick off mode to really basic search for the player/third person shooter mode is not a significant punish. It's not exactly a radically hard thing to get away from them to get them in their super basic search mode, and due to the lack of any reset it basically encouraged me to continually use stealth to just pick them off and then run away when caught. The tactic literally worked all the way from the very beginning to the very end. If you wanted to take out every guy in a room in MGS2 with stealth you'd need to make you're never caught and that you cover your tracks. TLoU doesn't even let you cover your tracks and it doesn't even really matter all that much when they do find bodies, they just slightly change their pathing, oh boy what a hard punish.

The same guy agreeing and highlighting the gameplay dissonance of The Last Of Us wants enemies to respawn endlessly?

Surely you aren't serious? Did I misunderstand your post?


Edit: Wait! No!

I confused Comfort Jones with Cave Johnson. *hides self*. I'll keep my original post intact in the interest of fairness.

 

[Comfort Jones]

The same guy agreeing and highlighting the gameplay dissonance of The Last Of Us wants enemies to respawn endlessly?

Surely you aren't serious? Did I misunderstand your post?


Edit: Wait! No!

I confused Comfort Jones with Cave Johnson. *hides self*. I'll keep my original post intact in the interest of fairness.

I'm not saying enemies in TLoU need to respawn endlessly, I'm saying the fact that the guards replace fallen patrolmen basically encourages the player to not get caught in the first place because there's a chance he'll be forced into the exact same problem he was in before. That situation literally cannot occur in TLoU because either way a dead enemy advances you towards the end of the section. If they wanted to allow the player to pick off enemies, then when the enemies actually spot the player they should do a better job staying together, not be super fucking basic with their search routines, not be capable of being choked out when you grab them from the front (there were a couple times where I pretty easily lured guys to the same room to choke them out by waiting behind a wall til they were all dead), etc.

 

[Refreshment.01]

The Last Of Us was the first game that really connected narrative and gameplay. I've nevern seen something like that before and I didn't think something like that was possible in games.
For years I've been arguing that its impossible to tell very good stories in video games.
Mainly because interactivity is something you can't have in a good story. A good story is good because the characters are good. The characters are unique and deep and when players get to be such a character it doesn't work because you need to give some of the choice the characters would make and therby some of the identity of the characters to the player.
I still think David Cage is doing it wrong. You can't have a good story when you let the player decide what the characters should do. That shit makes your story and everything in it replacable and good stories aren't replacable.

It didn't do anything beyond what many other AAA game have done in terms of narrative and gameplay, so to claim is doing firsts is as dubious as saying that TLOU is the first game to use infected as a pivotal part of it's story telling. The fact that is doing a better job that the other games that are doing the same, while great, doesn't mean is breaking new ground in videogame narrative.

The gameplay to narrative relationship is as divorced as ever. You move from one place to the other facing wave of enemies or trying to sneak past them with a very basic stealth system. Those powerfull emotional moments are relegated to cinematics, those chatting snips during gameplay feel disconnected and do not benefit from the cinematography or the quality facial expressions we see in them. There's no emotional connection been stablished through game mechanics, just move shoot and kill then reward the user with the next cinematic morsel.

Game was among the best in 2013, but let's not pretend the game is achieving something is not.

 

[RedSwirl]

I'm gonna have to add to the sentiment that TLOU really was not groundbreaking at all, in terms of gameplay or narrative, and especially not in terms of interaction between gameplay and narrative. It does a slightly better job than most shooters of reconciling the ridiculousness that ensues when shooters try to have serious stories. I still think that's an issue inherent to the whole genre though.

Let me just say this, in my opinion a shooter (or action game period) isn't the best genre to accommodate a story, setting, and characters like TLOU's.

 

[Wynnebeck]

Game was among the best in 2013, but let's not pretend the game is achieving something is not.

"Game was the best of last year, but really it's pretty mediocre." Implying that the only reason the game was awarded was because of the cutscenes instead of the game as a whole is pretty ridiculous.