-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why The Last of Us Was Disappointing (Video)
- Thread starter HyperBitHero
- Start date
Chuck Norris
Banned
I thought it came really close to that.
most games AI can be broken on easy difficulty levels because you're able to do things the AI wasn't programmed for without dying. and there's no proof that the game was even set on hard if he was lying about survivor
Exactly!
And his "video" is lol-worthy.
Metalmurphy
Member
It's funny how I could only find one case of a brick not glowing, when there's multiple cases throughout the whole video of them glowing, yet most of it is supposed to be from survivor.
I know I know, coincidences.
Believing what exactly?
Triggerhappytel
Member
Net_Wrecker
Member
If he manages to break the game through fairly normal gameplay (ie: not hacking geometry and the like), and ends up in many situations where things aren't occurring as advertised, he should be able to call it out as disappointing regardless of what other people experienced. Some players will never attempt the gameplay strategies he shows in the video and will never see those AI missteps happening, but if the game gives you the opportunity to and it fails to react properly, I think that's enough for him to make his statements. Even if it comes down to him cherry picking moments from footage he's captured, I think expressing disappointment at the AI inconsistencies, taking into account the kind of game TLoU is- a linear action-survival game with not as many variables as more glitch prone titles- is still valid.
But if you're simply taking issue with his language, as if these are absolute problems that every player will face, or that he states there are definitely things not in the game that others prove are there, that's fine.
Every Time I Die
Banned
well I guess there won't be any levelheaded discussion of the games merits and flaws
but the video did essentially tell me that media blackouts are for the best because the pre launch hype really is merely a narrative of exciting jargon that ultimately resolves as hot air.
That being said I cannot recall a single game I have ever gotten where a missing feature thoroughly disappointed me, with the exclusion of Burnout Paradise not having local mp.
but the video did essentially tell me that media blackouts are for the best because the pre launch hype really is merely a narrative of exciting jargon that ultimately resolves as hot air.
That being said I cannot recall a single game I have ever gotten where a missing feature thoroughly disappointed me, with the exclusion of Burnout Paradise not having local mp.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
I'm sorry, but the event demo features are there. They just aren't scipted. Pull out a gun after knocking a guy to the ground. Watch them plead for their life. Hold people hostage, watch their pals' reactions. If a TLoU 2 gets scripted encounters because of these claims, I'll be upset because the game already had thrilling, cinematic encounters without being overly scripted.
test_account
XP-39C²
Just out of curiousity, regarding the different difficulty settings show in the video, why didnt you (the OP) capture all the footage from the hardest difficulty? Why is some footage showing from the harderst difficulty and some footage isnt? Honest question, i'm just wondering why.
From what i've read of the comments, it seems that people mean that the OP angle the game from the worse sides sometimes (in other words, picks out selective things), and also provide some false information about the game sometimes, and they take an issue with this. If this is true (i cant verify it myself), i think its fair to mention this.
Auto-Reply
Member
Isn't survivor locked until you played through the game on hard? (I'm not trying to find errors in what you say since i experienced a lot of what you show in the video myself on hard difficulty, i honestly don't know this, i just thought it was like that you'd had to unlock survivor)
You should know that many things can be disingenuous about video games and youtube commentaries.
jacksepticeye
Member
Or lies.
Or he had no footage of harder modes and just used lower difficulty hoping no one would notice
Canis lupus
Member
You need to beat the game atleast once to unlock Survivor. Who knows he might've just beat it on Easy.
Not all of them, sorry.
Aarglefarg
Member
The AI isn't up to the promise, but the video is mostly interesting on the level of AI manipulation. Poke at it enough and strange things will happen.
For example, there's this for MGS3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le23bsVURds
For example, there's this for MGS3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le23bsVURds
I could create a 5 minute video of the Dark Souls AI behaving at its best, but that wouldn't prove the alternative, and isn't representative of the product as a whole, or likely experiences.
I doubt that the majority of TLOU players experienced AI like the E3 demo consistently. I certainly didn't, and that's disappointing.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
I know and I will call it out if it is.
jacksepticeye
Member
I didn't either but it doesn't mean it's not there or can't happen. Which is what his video feels like it's trying to prove
I wish people on the internet understood than you can think a game in fantastic YET still be able to criticize it.
There is a number of things that I feel could have been avoided (mostly particular cases of some bits of levels that could have been done better throughout the game), just moments where I thought to myself "come on Naughty Dog, you're better than this...".
Yet that doesn't mean it completely eclipses the fact that most things in the Last Of Us are done better (sometimes way better) than anywhere else, so my overview of the whole game is highly positive.
I'm sure we can all process such a complex opinion of something right ?
The Last Of Us did have AI problems, and it's true that for a game that really thrives in making you believe in his characters, in his plot, in his dialogues, in his atmosphere, in his world, through several masterfully crafter aspects, the AI stuff is the only thing that sometimes broke the immersion that is the game's forte.
Now I understand that making a 10 minutes video about it can seem nitpicky, overzealous, or what have you, especially when we get to saying stuff like "omg so dishonnest scripted e3 demos".
However, I think it's also very stupid to claim the troubles aren't there when they're clearly shown here.
Here's my take on it, and I'm sure most of you probably share it : yes, there are troubles with the AI in this game that sometimes led to funny/immersion-breaking situations, but they didn't ruin the game and it was still an amazing experience for me.
But saying that there's no problem, I don't get that. Wether you or me found it a big deal in regards to the whole game, and if so to what degree, now that's opinions. But you can just dismiss the few issues there is with the game whenever someone brings them up.
Yep, the multiplayer is brilliant, and perfectly captures the fantasy of being survivors in this world.
There is a number of things that I feel could have been avoided (mostly particular cases of some bits of levels that could have been done better throughout the game), just moments where I thought to myself "come on Naughty Dog, you're better than this...".
Yet that doesn't mean it completely eclipses the fact that most things in the Last Of Us are done better (sometimes way better) than anywhere else, so my overview of the whole game is highly positive.
I'm sure we can all process such a complex opinion of something right ?
The Last Of Us did have AI problems, and it's true that for a game that really thrives in making you believe in his characters, in his plot, in his dialogues, in his atmosphere, in his world, through several masterfully crafter aspects, the AI stuff is the only thing that sometimes broke the immersion that is the game's forte.
Now I understand that making a 10 minutes video about it can seem nitpicky, overzealous, or what have you, especially when we get to saying stuff like "omg so dishonnest scripted e3 demos".
However, I think it's also very stupid to claim the troubles aren't there when they're clearly shown here.
Here's my take on it, and I'm sure most of you probably share it : yes, there are troubles with the AI in this game that sometimes led to funny/immersion-breaking situations, but they didn't ruin the game and it was still an amazing experience for me.
But saying that there's no problem, I don't get that. Wether you or me found it a big deal in regards to the whole game, and if so to what degree, now that's opinions. But you can just dismiss the few issues there is with the game whenever someone brings them up.
Yep, the multiplayer is brilliant, and perfectly captures the fantasy of being survivors in this world.
HyperBitHero
Member
I don't think so. I think it just unlocks after you complete the game once. This footage isn't from my first run of the game, if that's what you're wondering.
jacksepticeye
Member
Been saying this for years myself as well. Shadow of the colossus is my favourite game ever but it's not flawless
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
I don't see a single person saying there are no problems in TLoU. I see a few people jumping the gun acting like people are treating it as such though. A lot of people trying to preempt the fanboys, not any actual fanboys (outside of the two who think complaints are coming from other console fanboys).
FaintColt388301
Member
I thought the AI was good. I liked it. It was not E3 levels but it was still tough and tense which made me happy.
Pretty funny catch on the difficulty of the footage. If you could actually capture that stuff on survivor difficulty, the extra time to capture it would have been worth it. Shot yourself in the foot OP
Pretty funny catch on the difficulty of the footage. If you could actually capture that stuff on survivor difficulty, the extra time to capture it would have been worth it. Shot yourself in the foot OP
HyperBitHero
Member
I love that video.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Simply put and this is pretty much every game AI rarely acts consistently great or consistently bad.
Taking clips of AI performing at its worst and using that as a conclusion that the AI is bad throughout the game is simply foolish. As is expecting the inverse.
In general thought TLoU AI is great.
He is only privy to his impressions, and his opinions as a result. If you want to provide specific points wrong, fair enough. But belittling his opinion is unnecessary.
Assuming that the OP didn't see things occur, I can understand him claiming they don't happen, using his own experiences. I might insist that glitches don't occur unless you force them, as that was my experience. It is substantiated only by what I know of. Doesn't make me a liar unless I deny it when called out, or saw glitches occur and ignored them.
Lowlander2
Banned
I haven't seen the video, mostly because I'm not terribly fond of HBH's output and general attitude (one of his most viewed videos is a dissertation on DmC's characterisation well before the game came out), but y'all need to relax and consider that there are very few parts of a game that can be objectively analysed. If he found the AI lacking and everyone else found the AI smart, so be it. I called it my second best game of the year, I can back up my thoughts on this eloquently, and that's where my interest with conflicting discourse on The Last of Us ends. Although I like reading other opinions, they don't affect mine. I still love the game.
THAT
SAID
Basing your entire outlook on a game based on demo isn't exactly stupid. I mean, that's what demos are for. But I had hoped everyone would be savvy enough to temper their expectations past a certain point. It's just like Vince Vaughan says in Dodgeball. If you have a goal in mind, a game might not reach it. If you don't, you'll never be disappointed.
I haven't played a demo in years, particularly because of the beneficiary of no expectations and partially out of pure laziness.
THAT
SAID
Basing your entire outlook on a game based on demo isn't exactly stupid. I mean, that's what demos are for. But I had hoped everyone would be savvy enough to temper their expectations past a certain point. It's just like Vince Vaughan says in Dodgeball. If you have a goal in mind, a game might not reach it. If you don't, you'll never be disappointed.
I haven't played a demo in years, particularly because of the beneficiary of no expectations and partially out of pure laziness.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
We have reached the Vince Vaughan portion of the thread, finally.
jacksepticeye
Member
Don't deny some colossi felt a bit underwhelming or sameyWrong. SotC is flawless.
Damn good game though. Still the best to me
I found the AI underwhelming, when it should have consistently been like the E3 demo. If that was the baseline, and it was at times worse or better, I wouldn't take issue with TLOU's AI.
Is the game fantastic? Yes. Did it disappoint me? Absolutely.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
So what just because he didn't experience it, it suddenly means thats its not there in the game. Such a silly conclusion that is and what is made in the video.
jacksepticeye
Member
Well he said that most of the footage was survivor mode and was proven wrong and still didnt admit it. Which makes me question some of the stuff he's saying. Why should I really belive he did do all this stuff on Survivor?
No. He didn't experience it so why should it factor into his impressions? That's besides the general point that the AI doesn't live up to that of the E3 demo.
Metalmurphy
Member
His video goes beyond his impressions, he makes claims that are just false.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Well, uh. No, man. If you don't experience something, how can it make it into a video? By definition, it didn't exist. Hard to record something that you don't see.
I mean, if he didn't believe in airplanes and never saw one, he couldn't make a video of airplanes. But, when shown a video of a Lear jet, the correct response would be "oh, hey, shit. I was mistaken."
Chuck Norris
Banned
I experienced everything that occurred within the demo
Yes it bugged out at times, but at other times it was phenomenal
That is the nature of AI, the more complex you get the more chance of bugginess. Some of the most praised games for their AI like Halo, FEAR, Crysis, Far Cry etc. can turn quite silly as times
You mean posts like this:
"This is gotta be one of the most nitpicky video I have ever seen. holy shit."
Nitpicking? Even if you might not agree, the matters the video brings up are far from nitpicking matters. Nitpicking would be complaining about the hair of a character moving in a strange way, not the AI being considerably worse than what was advertised.
Or your post:
"Seems like you had some unfortunate AI problems there. I can only say for myself but playing on Hard the AI was good. "
Some AI problems?! It seems he thought the AI was so bad he couldn't enjoy the game. Thats not "Some AI problems", sheesh. And you thought the AI was good on hard? I can't understand that. I think the AI was just bad all over.
Or this:
"Why this game is disappointing to me and you are all wrong for liking it!"
This is the worst of the bunch. He never said anything about people being wrong for liking it, and a video presenting why the game is disappointing to you; whats the matter with that? Just an atrocious post well worthy of the "defense force"-label.
Even having the AI wrestle your gun from you?
plasmawave
Banned
The irony in this comment is just mind boggling.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
I started to type a response to it, then just deleted it. Either he's making a joke by being as ironic as possible, or there's just a dead end there not worth going down. I wish I never heard about fucking Poe's law.
Again; there is nothing wrong with him calling out that the A.I. in the final game is not the same as in the E3 demo, and there's nothing wrong with it making the game disappointing for him or him expressing that disappointment here on GAF. The A.I. in The Last of Us has issues, I'm not denying that anywhere. Yes, you can encounter some of the things in the video through regular gameplay, I'm not denying that either. All I'm saying is that the video the OP made is not representative of the A.I. at all, because it consists of cherry-picked clips from multiple playthroughs in which he was actively trying to break the A.I. in order to support his point. You can break anything if you try hard enough. It is not even remotely representative of actual normal gameplay (as evidenced by him doing weird stuff like sitting on top of cover, waiting for extended periods of time before attacking a vulnerable enemy, leading enemies through doorways, etc.), yet he claims that it is an accurate representation of regular gameplay on the highest difficulty, which it - again - isn't. Now again, some of this stuff can potentially happen during normal gameplay - again, not denying that or saying the A.I. doesn't have its issues - but in nowhere near the frequency or severity presented in the video, even though OP claims that it is representative of regular gameplay, which it just simply isn't.
The video is the problem here, as it exaggerates the problem massively through cherry-picked clips and OP actively trying to break the A.I., and thus the video does not contribute to any meaningful discussion and the OP deservedly receives backlash for it.
Regardless of whether the OP's experiences with TLOU represent the majority of Gaf's experiences or not, I have to agree with him that this game - just as Bioshock Infinite (and Tomb Raider for that matter) - for me was partly ruined because of the final product not living up to the demos showed earlier, or my hopes and expectations based on them and the developers' pedigree.
I fear that throwing this term out again might have this thread erupt into flames and get me branded for eternity, but for me it's all about ludonarrative dissonance that makes both games fall short. If developers go out there stating that they are trying to create hollistic gaming experiences in which the world is meaningful because it looks consistent and logical, and because each encounter in that world is dynamic and meaningful as well, things like weak AI (in TLOU and B:I), artificial bullet scarcity because you can't consistently loot the enemies' bullets (in TLOU), or vigors being only used by Booker for the most part or everyday vending machines selling mosly ammo (again in B:I), heavily break these games for me as far as their power to immerse and wow me goes (and despite their worlds indeed looking very good or their passive story elements being fascinating).
Don't get me wrong: I still enjoyed both, and especially TLOU, because of their setting, story and atmosphere, but I wasn't so completely blown away by them as most people here and in the media seem to have been (apart from Doug and his Cruncheons who also were quite critical of TLOU especially).
Back to TLOU: If the game would have had truly innovative AI that made each encounter with (non-infected) enemies feel like you are fighting semi-intelligent humans, which the gameplay mechanics and ludonarrative setting certainly asked for, I would have been blown away instead of being amused and only occasionally moved by this game. The same for B:I: if the game would have featured less elements that seemed to be out of place and just there to make the player feel powerful, or if it would have retained all of the dynamic tear-stuff shown in the demo, I would have been more impressed and would not have considered it as being "just" an enjoyable shooter with some good story elements and nice scenery.
As a lifelong gamer I want games to advance beyond graphics and sound improvements, and also beyond having only more realistic characters in cutscenes. Real revolution occurs if gameplay, narrativity and presentation are all complimentary to each other to create new emergent experiences (to use another populist term that actually means something). Both TLOU and B:I seemed to be heading in the right direction just to fumble before the finish line. In other words they ending up as finished games that, while admittedly look and sound great and that feature effective passive storytelling elements, lack innovation in AI and gameplay and thus don;t really allow the player to become connected more deeply to the game world through his/her own variety of actions. We should demand more from such highly produced and hyped games, and in fact we already do in the Indie game world where such innovations in the total package are becoming more and more common.
As always: these are just my two cents on this matter of course, so feel free to disagree.
I fear that throwing this term out again might have this thread erupt into flames and get me branded for eternity, but for me it's all about ludonarrative dissonance that makes both games fall short. If developers go out there stating that they are trying to create hollistic gaming experiences in which the world is meaningful because it looks consistent and logical, and because each encounter in that world is dynamic and meaningful as well, things like weak AI (in TLOU and B:I), artificial bullet scarcity because you can't consistently loot the enemies' bullets (in TLOU), or vigors being only used by Booker for the most part or everyday vending machines selling mosly ammo (again in B:I), heavily break these games for me as far as their power to immerse and wow me goes (and despite their worlds indeed looking very good or their passive story elements being fascinating).
Don't get me wrong: I still enjoyed both, and especially TLOU, because of their setting, story and atmosphere, but I wasn't so completely blown away by them as most people here and in the media seem to have been (apart from Doug and his Cruncheons who also were quite critical of TLOU especially).
Back to TLOU: If the game would have had truly innovative AI that made each encounter with (non-infected) enemies feel like you are fighting semi-intelligent humans, which the gameplay mechanics and ludonarrative setting certainly asked for, I would have been blown away instead of being amused and only occasionally moved by this game. The same for B:I: if the game would have featured less elements that seemed to be out of place and just there to make the player feel powerful, or if it would have retained all of the dynamic tear-stuff shown in the demo, I would have been more impressed and would not have considered it as being "just" an enjoyable shooter with some good story elements and nice scenery.
As a lifelong gamer I want games to advance beyond graphics and sound improvements, and also beyond having only more realistic characters in cutscenes. Real revolution occurs if gameplay, narrativity and presentation are all complimentary to each other to create new emergent experiences (to use another populist term that actually means something). Both TLOU and B:I seemed to be heading in the right direction just to fumble before the finish line. In other words they ending up as finished games that, while admittedly look and sound great and that feature effective passive storytelling elements, lack innovation in AI and gameplay and thus don;t really allow the player to become connected more deeply to the game world through his/her own variety of actions. We should demand more from such highly produced and hyped games, and in fact we already do in the Indie game world where such innovations in the total package are becoming more and more common.
As always: these are just my two cents on this matter of course, so feel free to disagree.
I agree OP, the AI was very bland especially with what the E3 demo promised. I couldn't get into the game because the cutscenes were unskippable which wouldn't have been a problem if they weren't tedious long at parts. I also found myself laughing at a lot of animation jank with characters clipping through object, Ellie teleporting around the map and those moments when they have characters talk to you while moving, in which I would immediately run ahead and start doing things only to cause Joel to talk to himself in an unsettling matter.
But this game is popular because it's topical (Zombies, apocalyptic and a heart tuggin' female support character who you need to protect) and it does have a really nice collection of voice actors with great motion capture along with fantastic environmental designs. But it's all moot when what I wanted was a game that was better than Uncharted, as opposed to a copy paste with higher production values.
I think it got GOTY because it collected, condensed and polished most of what gaming had done that year, which is a great bragging right I guess.
But this game is popular because it's topical (Zombies, apocalyptic and a heart tuggin' female support character who you need to protect) and it does have a really nice collection of voice actors with great motion capture along with fantastic environmental designs. But it's all moot when what I wanted was a game that was better than Uncharted, as opposed to a copy paste with higher production values.
I think it got GOTY because it collected, condensed and polished most of what gaming had done that year, which is a great bragging right I guess.
Which I assume weren't made with malicious intent. Such as the enemies running from guns thing.
But, even in your video, it seemed to occur due to you prompting it. I could be wrong, but it looks like your intent in the video was to show it could happen, by continually aiming down the sight at enemies. And even then I didn't see the AI sprint away, but rather calmly enter cover. I could be mistaken, so a timestamp of what you deem to be proof to the contrary would be helpful.
The point being that I am willing to believe that the OP honestly didn't have an experience of that, and therefore made an ill informed comment pertaining to his own impressions, but a valid comment nonetheless.
There's no doubt that the E3 demo was in some way scripted, I finished the game on Hard and the AI was nowhere near that good. To be honest I was impressed that the game was not criticized for it's dumbed down AI by gamers and reviewers.
Also WTF at the AI programmer saying that the AI is improved on the final game. :/
Betta Lines
Member
I remember when this topic came up before, and I also had the impression that the AI was nothing like the E3 demo and the same people have popped up again to defend their beloved game.
The AI isn't as bad as the OP suggests, but there are some valid criticisms and I'd not seen that Reddit quote before - I mean... I don't want to argue with the guy who actually programmed the AI, but I really don't understand how he can justify that? How is the final game better?
The AI isn't as bad as the OP suggests, but there are some valid criticisms and I'd not seen that Reddit quote before - I mean... I don't want to argue with the guy who actually programmed the AI, but I really don't understand how he can justify that? How is the final game better?
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Well when I said we, I meant the posters who are actually criticising the video instead of the drive by posts like you highlighted. Such people should be rightfully ignored till they elaborate their stance.
In relation to my post yes some. I can sit hours through the vast majority of games and identify AI problems come to the silly conclusion that the AI is bad (the inverse is also true). In reality when playing a game the AI do not consistently act on their best or worst behaviour and so saying that either behaviour is a representation of AI gameplay throughout the entirety of the game is not right.
But this is all besides the point that the OP was lying claiming things like ambushing were not in the game.