The Last of US Discussion

Recommended Videos

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
I will agree with that in terms of the flamethrower, which takes away the threat of any infected encounter from then on. Granted you get it very late into the game where there are only three infected areas left where you're able to use it. But the fact that it stun-locks all infected, even the Bloaters, was not a smart move by Naughty Dog.

But for the rest, no. I like that the game gives you some weapon variety, instead of just a handgun and just a shotgun or rifle. The way you burn through ammo, having just a two weapon limit would be infuriating as all hell. It would make less sense for a person in that situation to only carry two guns at a time, instead of trying to carry as many as he can.

And the shooting mechanincs reinforced that Joel is not a gunman, he's just a man with a gun. Naughty Dog took a huge risk by implementing the amount of gun sway that they did, and it paid off fantastically. With every shoot I fired I felt like I was firing a real gun and not a videogame weapon.
The two weapon limit should[\b] be infuriating. That's the point of survival style games. The variety of weapons in the game is fine, but the fact that you can carry an armoury in your backpack takes away from the survival atmosphere. I dislike the fact that Joel can carry so many weapons on him at a time. A chest/stash system would have worked a lot better. Or just few weapons at all. In I AM ALIVE you get a gun, rope, a backpack with realistic inventory space, and a machete. Also the need for water to live and the very, very, very[/b[] limited ammo for the pistol make for a better survival experience. And due to ammo being so limited you can point an unloaded gun at enemies in order to bluff them and escape fatal situations.

Also, the shooting mechanics didn't purposefully implement Joel having sub par aim to show his lack of gun experience. That's been an issue for Naughty Dog's Uncharted series as well. It's been the same mediocre shooting mechanics for a while now. As such the shooting mechanics being wonky doesn't fit in this game because of the lack of a survival atmosphere due to its other mechanics. And burning through ammo doesn't really have much consequence because ammo isn't as hard to find as it should be as well as the fact that Joel has the equivalent of a D&D Bag of Holding.

"Its story is very, very vanilla Hollywood and that is something that gamers need to stop calling amazing every time a game cranks a Hollywood movie style story out. It leads to the stories in Western video games becoming as saturated as Western cinema is these days. Simply making a story that would serve as good if it were a movie should not be good enough for gamers that enjoy a game with story. And the massive near perfect scores don't help, then again reviews have lost all integrity at this point if you look at Total War Rome II's scores..."

It... really isn't though.

The game's story is incredibly nihilistic, and not in the typical brooding fashion either. The title itself indicates this; It's about the last remnants of humanity slowly disintegrating, and whatever physical presence we might've had on the world being taken over by nature until no trace of our existence remains.

And I'm sure I wasn't the only who thought either Joel or Ellie was going to die, seeing as that is generally the cheapest manner by which to force empathy for a bonding couple. Instead they both survive with Joel having completely lost a grip on reality, and Ellie's enthusiasm and hope for a better future viciously snapped in half. Living out the rest of their lives in a community which is just as likely to be taken over by bandits or infected as all those places you've traveled through.

That is far from your usual Hollywood fare.
It's pretty Hollywood. The Last of Us' story has been done in Hollywood so very many times. Name a post-apocalypse movie that's come out in the past few decades and they cover the non brooding nihilism that you just described. The Road and The Book of Eli are recent examples. Ever Since the World Ended is another. Hollywood has done movies that parallel The Last of Us' vibe for a long, long time. Maybe not within the last 2 years, but its been done.
The Last of Us even carries a lot of the tropes associated with apocalypse movies:
The grown up/child duo.
The family styled connection between the two.
The anarchy caused by the Apocalypse.
Cannibals.
Right down to the main protagonist having an unkempt beard.

Its just like how the Uncharted games could have serves as and Indiana Jones/The Mummy/Allan Quartermain.

Seriously, watch The Road and then compare it to the Last of Us. Its almost parallel in story. Its not a bad story for a game but that's the part of the game that's gaining it such critical acclaim for being so "fresh" and "unique" when its not. Its a great trope filled Hollywood script turned into a game and had the survival elements softened.

That's why I say that I AM ALIVE is a better apocalypse survival game than The Last of Us. The Last of Us has a better story but I AM ALIVE has more appropriate gameplay for its story(which is actually pretty good).

The Last of Us is actually a pretty uninspired game when you actually take a look at it for more than 5 minutes. The Last of Us is just another AAA title shows why gamers shouldn't trust rave reviews from major publications.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
Soviet Heavy said:
Two months late, but still important. So, everybody has been raving about how The Last of Us is the greatest game of this generation. And here's a person being a contrarian who is saying "I don't get the enjoyment of this game/stop liking what I like!"


Gameplay felt trite and dull, and so often it was at odds with the story they were trying to tell.
Like when Ellie is on the run from David's cannibals. The player can fucking mow down dozens of people with Ellie, knifing them, shooting them and so on. But the story treats her admittedly brutal self defense killing of David like a major point. It's a big disconnect after watching her slaughter half a town. Why should killing David be the thing that traumatizes her?



One of the best game stories told? Absolutely. Best game of the generation? Not even close.
I don't think Ellie was traumatized by killing David, I think she was traumatized by her near rape and almost being eaten. Hacking Davids face into a red paste was a direct result of her defending herself from a rapist after having to struggle through a town of cannibals. Also, hacking someone to pieces like that is far more traumatic and far more personal than shooting someone from far away.

I actually like the gameplay, but I loved the stealth sections and the slow moments of the game were the ones I enjoyed the most. I felt like the gameplay improved the story tremendously, particularly in Ellies section. The way your listening ability was effectively useless in the snowstorm, leaving you literally blind, was a stroke of genius. The game was very good at making you empathize with the characters through gameplay mechanics. The fact that the characters were under powered compared to other games made me happy, and every encounter and fight felt like a puzzle instead of a standard third person shoot out. The level design was pretty good from that perspective.

I agree the setting is painfully overused, and when it was announced Naughty Dog was already late to the party. Zombies have been done to death, and so has post apocalypse. I love survival games though, regardless of setting, so I felt it nailed certain mechanics other games got wrong. Tom Raider, Far Cry 3, and The Last of Us all tried to explore similar ideas, but TLoU succeeded in places where the other two failed.

That said, I wouldn't call it game of the generation. It's in the top five for sure, but I'm not going to pretend it was perfect.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
Fox12 said:
I agree the setting is painfully overused, and when it was announced Naughty Dog was already late to the party. Zombies have been done to death, and so has post apocalypse.
The best parts of the game were with the human enemies anyways. I would have liked it if the infection didn't cause zombies, but if it simply killed people, and the spores were toxic. It'd be like the world going through the bubonic plague again, except that the fungus would kill you in a matter of days, turn you into spores and spread them. Same premise, sans zombies.
 

ThatQuietGuy

New member
May 22, 2013
73
0
0
I agree, the gameplay is nothing special, I wouldn't say it's unengaging though or even bad.

Some of my own opinions about the game: It didn't do enough with the zombies. I know it's kinda a trope in zombie themes that the real danger is humans turning on each other in an apocalyptic scenario but after the first act of the game or so the ratio of zombies to bandits is like 1:3 or at least it feels like it.

I did love that ending though, was thinking about it all the next day.
 

Nonomori

New member
Nov 20, 2012
131
0
0
Soviet Heavy said:
Fox12 said:
I agree the setting is painfully overused, and when it was announced Naughty Dog was already late to the party. Zombies have been done to death, and so has post apocalypse.
The best parts of the game were with the human enemies anyways. I would have liked it if the infection didn't cause zombies, but if it simply killed people, and the spores were toxic. It'd be like the world going through the bubonic plague again, except that the fungus would kill you in a matter of days, turn you into spores and spread them. Same premise, sans zombies.
I would miss the RE4 moment with Ellie in the cabin. And that bloater in the university? I run past it on my first playthrough and it was oddly satisfying.

I could not avoid thinking "oh, here we go again" after the cutscene where Tess shoots a guy and Joel runs to cover. I know that everyone and their mothers had enough of zombies, but it's not like shooting behind crates or stealthing your way through is amazingly creative.

With or without zombies, The Last of Us isn't the kind of game with crazy new ideas. At least the back and forth between infected and human enemies makes the action much more enjoyable and diverse than your typical corridor shooter.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,519
5,335
118
AzrealMaximillion said:
The two weapon limit should[\b] be infuriating. That's the point of survival style games. The variety of weapons in the game is fine, but the fact that you can carry an armoury in your backpack takes away from the survival atmosphere. I dislike the fact that Joel can carry so many weapons on him at a time. A chest/stash system would have worked a lot better. Or just few weapons at all. In I AM ALIVE you get a gun, rope, a backpack with realistic inventory space, and a machete. Also the need for water to live and the very, very, very[/b[] limited ammo for the pistol make for a better survival experience. And due to ammo being so limited you can point an unloaded gun at enemies in order to bluff them and escape fatal situations.
Nobody said TLoU was a survival game though. It falls squarely in the catagory of a Resident Evil 4; an action game designed to put the screws on you. This time it just has a survival theme. And every weapon has its appropriate strengths and weaknesses. And everything from the crafting to the scavaging is designed for making it through enemy encounters.

Now I never played I Am Alive so I can't comment on that, but if I were to take a wild guess I'd imagine it's not as long a game or has as large a fighting arenas. Playing a game as lenghty as TLoU with as wide a spaces as it has, only being able to carry two weapons, and having to constantly run back and forth to pick up the most adequate weapon for the situation when you're in the middle of a firefight or infected encounter with enemies coming from every direction, would... well, it would turn it into Bioshock: Infinite. It would cause you to suffer through most combat sections (and not in an engaging way), because you don't want to let go of a powerful weapon.
Also, the shooting mechanics didn't purposefully implement Joel having sub par aim to show his lack of gun experience. That's been an issue for Naughty Dog's Uncharted series as well. It's been the same mediocre shooting mechanics for a while now. As such the shooting mechanics being wonky doesn't fit in this game because of the lack of a survival atmosphere due to its other mechanics. And burning through ammo doesn't really have much consequence because ammo isn't as hard to find as it should be as well as the fact that Joel has the equivalent of a D&D Bag of Holding.
Actually, yes it did, seeing as the weapon sway was purposefully implemented. Now I can't argue if you didn't like the way the guns handled. But to me they sounded loud, they felt heavy, they had visible impact on enemies, and when I missed a shot it felt like my own fault. That's all I need from them. And burning through ammo does have consequences since you can't infinitely store ammo. The stronger a weapon is the less ammo it holds. The shotgun can hold only 14 rounds, and nearly every enemy usually takes two rounds to take down unless you let them get really close. The strongest gun in the game can hold only 8 or 9 rounds. And this limit also applies to crafting resources and crafted items.



The cabin attack in Winter with Ellie gives a good impression of the overall action scenes in the game. You only have your rifle and shots are costly. Enemies will drop ammo, but you never know how much or when. You're constantly kept aware of your resources, reminding you you can't just mindlessly unload, intensifying the action.

It's pretty Hollywood. The Last of Us' story has been done in Hollywood so very many times. Name a post-apocalypse movie that's come out in the past few decades and they cover the non brooding nihilism that you just described. The Road and The Book of Eli are recent examples. Ever Since the World Ended is another. Hollywood has done movies that parallel The Last of Us' vibe for a long, long time. Maybe not within the last 2 years, but its been done.
The Last of Us even carries a lot of the tropes associated with apocalypse movies:
The grown up/child duo.
The family styled connection between the two.
The anarchy caused by the Apocalypse.
Cannibals.
Right down to the main protagonist having an unkempt beard.

Its just like how the Uncharted games could have serves as and Indiana Jones/The Mummy/Allan Quartermain.

Seriously, watch The Road and then compare it to the Last of Us. Its almost parallel in story. Its not a bad story for a game but that's the part of the game that's gaining it such critical acclaim for being so "fresh" and "unique" when its not. Its a great trope filled Hollywood script turned into a game and had the survival elements softened.

That's why I say that I AM ALIVE is a better apocalypse survival game than The Last of Us. The Last of Us has a better story but I AM ALIVE has more appropriate gameplay for its story(which is actually pretty good).

The Last of Us is actually a pretty uninspired game when you actually take a look at it for more than 5 minutes. The Last of Us is just another AAA title shows why gamers shouldn't trust rave reviews from major publications.
Since when was The Road typical Hollywood though? I never saw the movie, but I read the cliff notes and from what I heard it's generally regarded as a super depressive film. Typical Hollywood would be I Am Legend, a movie where they changed the ending to something lame and sappy, because the original ending was too confronting for audiences. Something I heard also occured with TLoU, where the ending bummed players out, but Naughty Dog held firm because this was the story they wanted to tell.
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,660
0
0
I think Last of Us really shines on 'Survivor' difficulty, just as BioShock Infinite is really only proper fun on 1999 mode. I think people cheat themselves out of the suspension and thrills they paid for on lower difficulty settings. That does not necessarily work for all titles (Hello, Catherine).

Agreed on story being exceptionally good, but I also consider the actual gameplay to be very, very enjoyable. The presentation is extremely well done. Bear in mind that I did not enjoy a rough 90% of the three Uncharted titles I played, and Last of Us, to me, felt like Super Über Uncharted, just with a more... I don't know. Less Nolan North male protagonist. More rounded. A setting I could relate to, felt like I wanted to discover things in. I liked that. I liked Ellie Page. I did not enjoy the bloody Hunger Games bit and that whole portion of the game. In the end, it did not keep me from being impressed, entertained and feeling 100% more value added emotional freebies than after having watched any of the current trite shite Hollywood pumps out.

The whole Cordyceps thing caught my attention when all we had was those two short viral video clips. I think the idea of mold/mushrooms/fungi (that is, not people, not plants, not animals...) taking over a supposedly more evolved, superiour organism, messing with its brains and making it do things it would not normally do to be a really messed up, noteable and rather scary thing to ever happen. Just the fact that it exists is enough to freak me out, way more easily than sending my brain into loops of Guru Meditation pondering on the supposed infinity of ever-expanding space.

Cordyceps is one of the more freaky forms of life that destroys other life to feed, exist and procreate. There are cordyceps that are parasitic to other fungi. They are, by all standards, cannibals and killers. There are dead maggoty things with cordyceps growths on them that are eaten and cherished by, say, the Japanese or the Chinese. We use some of the chemicals they produce to help, say, with organ transplants.

The Last Of Us was a wave of pollen-laden fresh air in a world of foul-smelling, mostly shambling, mostly somewhat boring zombies. I liked it, and still do... just differently, now that the ride is over.

There are many scary things out in nature. Things we prefer not to think too much about.

In a way, I'd like to think that the tale of highly evolved cordyceps targeting humans is, in a way, in the tradition of Jaws or Friday the 13th, and it's an important entry in that line of entertainment and interactive arts.

Next up: Pulsating asshole worm bullies.

<youtube=EWB_COSUXMw>
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
Nobody said TLoU was a survival game though. It falls squarely in the catagory of a Resident Evil 4; an action game designed to put the screws on you. This time it just has a survival theme. And every weapon has its appropriate strengths and weaknesses. And everything from the craftisng to the scavaging is designed for making it through enemy encounters.
It's listed as a survival horror game in many publications like IGN and the like. Credibility of those websites aside, they continually have called it a survival horror game.

Frankly, it's about as "Survival Horror" as every Resident Evil game starting from 4. The Last of Us falls into what the major publications call survival horror considering the other AAA games that get called survival horror are. Looking at Dead Space, Resi 4,5,6, Silent Hill after 4, F.E.A.R 2 & 3, and now The Last of Us, what we're getting is "action horror" instead of "Survival Horror".

Action Horror is basically a Survival Horror game stripped of most of its atmospheric horror in an unsettling setting and replaces with string instrument based musical cues and jump scares. While the Last of Us is basically an Action Horror, gaming media will be, and have been, calling the game a survival horror title since it was revealed. It set itself up to be a great survival horror game, but instead fans of true survival horror games were disappointed because its basically survival game made much easier and contributing to the "hand holdy" way games are made these days.
Now I never played I Am Alive so I can't comment on that, but if I were to take a wild guess I'd imagine it's not as long a game or has as large a fighting arenas. Playing a game as lenghty as TLoU with as wide a spaces as it has, only being able to carry two weapons, and having to constantly run back and forth to pick up the most adequate weapon for the situation when you're in the middle of a firefight or infected encounter with enemies coming from every direction, would... well, it would turn it into Bioshock: Infinite. It would cause you to suffer through most combat sections (and not in an engaging way), because you don't want to let go of a powerful weapon.
This assumes that The Last of Us and I Am Alive are both the dame kind of game.

They are not.

I Am Alive is not about cover based shooting, or shooting much at all. It's about survival above all. So there is no running around looking for weapons strewn about that happen to be very effective for the situation at the time. You only ever get the 6 shit revolver in I Am Alive. And its extremely rare to have more than 3 bullets at any given time.
The amount of weapons you get in The Last of Us makes you a walking army barracks that could supply a squad of soldiers no problem. Ammo is all over the place in that game. In I Am Alive, the gun is used in a more survival based fashion. You point the gun at your enemies in order to keep them at bay. Since guns and bullets are scarce you can use the sheer fact that you have a gun to scare enemies and in some cases avoid combat.

You can even point your empty gun at enemies in order to bluff them into leaving you alone. Even with bullets, they're so scarce that you still may end up choosing to use then machete you carry instead. I Am Alive is not based on running from cover to cover and pulling whatever gun you need from the NRA Santa Sack you carry.


Actually, yes it did, seeing as the weapon sway was purposefully implemented. Now I can't argue if you didn't like the way the guns handled. But to me they sounded loud, they felt heavy, they had visible impact on enemies, and when I missed a shot it felt like my own fault. That's all I need from them. And burning through ammo does have consequences since you can't infinitely store ammo. The stronger a weapon is the less ammo it holds. The shotgun can hold only 14 rounds, and nearly every enemy usually takes two rounds to take down unless you let them get really close. The strongest gun in the game can hold only 8 or 9 rounds. And this limit also applies to crafting resources and crafted items.

The cabin attack in Winter with Ellie gives a good impression of the overall action scenes in the game. You only have your rifle and shots are costly. Enemies will drop ammo, but you never know how much or when. You're constantly kept aware of your resources, reminding you you can't just mindlessly unload, intensifying the action.
What you've basically described is a generic AAA 3rd person shooter on hard mode. That's essentially what The Last of Us' combat is. From GTA 4's beginning missions to Read Dead Redemption to even as recent as Spec Ops The Line, 3rd person shooters have generally adapted a lower ammo counts then previous shooters like Max Payne and Painkiller. The Last of Us is not much different than Uncharted gameplay wise and as such, makes it a great game, but yet another action horror title with Hollywood thriller elements.

And back to the shooting mechanics being kinda sloppy here, they were just as sloppy in Uncharted 1-3, so if Naughty Dog truly fixed the shooting to be sluggish on purpose, they didn't need to change much, and didn't. What they did however, is actually give you not only more carry on weapons than Uncharted, and access to a bunch more thanks to your bag. Why have the shooting be sloppy if you're going to give the player access to more guns than the semi legal archaeologist who occasionally runs into modern pirates? Seems pretty dumb to me.




Since when was The Road typical Hollywood though? I never saw the movie, but I read the cliff notes and from what I heard it's generally regarded as a super depressive film. Typical Hollywood would be I Am Legend, a movie where they changed the ending to something lame and sappy, because the original ending was too confronting for audiences. Something I heard also occured with TLoU, where the ending bummed players out, but Naughty Dog held firm because this was the story they wanted to tell.
The Road is a typical Hollywood drama. It's, really, really good, but it's the kind of movie that we get 6 of in the Fall season every year for movies. All of the big emotional Drama movies come out in the Fall. 2009 was The Road, 2010 was True Grit.

You want the Hollywood of The Road, I'll use a comparison to True Grit as an example.
Both are Drama's that came out in the Fall-Winter months.
Both are bleak and depressing films as a lot of Dramas released in this time frame are.
Both are also pretty serious because frankly, this is the time where the Golden Globes are near and its panel has been waiting to get past the crappy movies that get released in Late Winter/Early Spring, the comedies of Late Spring/Early Summer, and the major actiony block busters of Summer.
Both are adaptations.
Both feature high production values and a lot of reputed actors.
Just because its not shoot em up rah rah action film, doesn't mean it didn't fall into the tropes of a western Hollywood movie. It assuredly did. Then again, you haven't seen the movie, so I'd suggest you do. You'll find it to be very similar to The Last of Us in tone and in story similarities. The Last of Us just plays like what an I Am Legend game would play like.


The Road being compared to I Am Legend is actually a pretty parallel examples to the one I'm pointing out here with Action vs. Suvival Horror.

While The Last of Us is a good game, it's critical acclaim is ill earned because it comes from a lot of major publications that just shower the most advertised games with awards and near-perfect ratings. The Last of Us has all the cues of most Hollywood post-apocalyptic drama films made in the last 10-15 years in its story. The Last of Us also has every "Action-Horror" trope to come from every AAA survival horror game since RE4. Right down to the overused change in music when something is about to happen that Dead Space is known for.

The change in music making the player feel tense is what the environment of the game should be doing, but it can't because you're given a level 2 Bag of Holding and a lot of guns and ammo for all of them.

It's a good action game that tried to be a survival horror game and got caught doing it. It was kinda sneaky though, but not enough.
 

Nonomori

New member
Nov 20, 2012
131
0
0
AzrealMaximillion said:
It's listed as a survival horror game in many publications like IGN and the like. Credibility of those websites aside, they continually have called it a survival horror game.

Frankly, it's about as "Survival Horror" as every Resident Evil game starting from 4. The Last of Us falls into what the major publications call survival horror considering the other AAA games that get called survival horror are. Looking at Dead Space, Resi 4,5,6, Silent Hill after 4, F.E.A.R 2 & 3, and now The Last of Us, what we're getting is "action horror" instead of "Survival Horror".

Action Horror is basically a Survival Horror game stripped of most of its atmospheric horror in an unsettling setting and replaces with string instrument based musical cues and jump scares. While the Last of Us is basically an Action Horror, gaming media will be, and have been, calling the game a survival horror title since it was revealed. It set itself up to be a great survival horror game, but instead fans of true survival horror games were disappointed because its basically survival game made much easier and contributing to the "hand holdy" way games are made these days.
You're giving too much importance to genres or the "gaming media". You can call this or that, doesn't change the actual experience of the game.

The "Survivor" difficult is exactly what says on the tin; you can't shoot everyone because you don't have enough bullets and resources are really scarce. For Christ's sake, I had to use bricks to kill clickers because I wanted to open all the shiv doors.

Also, The Last of Us is completely absent of jump scare tactics.

AzrealMaximillion said:
This assumes that The Last of Us and I Am Alive are both the dame kind of game.

They are not.

I Am Alive is not about cover based shooting, or shooting much at all. It's about survival above all. So there is no running around looking for weapons strewn about that happen to be very effective for the situation at the time. You only ever get the 6 shit revolver in I Am Alive. And its extremely rare to have more than 3 bullets at any given time.
The amount of weapons you get in The Last of Us makes you a walking army barracks that could supply a squad of soldiers no problem. Ammo is all over the place in that game. In I Am Alive, the gun is used in a more survival based fashion. You point the gun at your enemies in order to keep them at bay. Since guns and bullets are scarce you can use the sheer fact that you have a gun to scare enemies and in some cases avoid combat.

You can even point your empty gun at enemies in order to bluff them into leaving you alone. Even with bullets, they're so scarce that you still may end up choosing to use then machete you carry instead. I Am Alive is not based on running from cover to cover and pulling whatever gun you need from the NRA Santa Sack you carry.
You are conveniently forgetting that I Am Alive is a sloppy mess of a game with misused ideas that lead to a boring and bitter experience.

The platforming is a slog with a false sense of danger because you can pause the action to refill your stamina bar with delicious cocktails, the animations are stiff as they can be, combat is basic and repetitive with hilarious enemy patterns.

Not to mention that the game is downright ugly. I'm not talking about lack of eye candy, but visual aesthetics. Using various shades of grey without any care as a really bad idea. Typical case of shoving "atmosphere" down the players throat.

I'm trying to not sound too snark or maybe agressive here (you probably can tell that I regret the money that was wasted with I Am Alive), but I'm really happy that they are not the same kind of game.

AzrealMaximillion said:
What you've basically described is a generic AAA 3rd person shooter on hard mode. That's essentially what The Last of Us' combat is. From GTA 4's beginning missions to Read Dead Redemption to even as recent as Spec Ops The Line, 3rd person shooters have generally adapted a lower ammo counts then previous shooters like Max Payne and Painkiller. The Last of Us is not much different than Uncharted gameplay wise and as such, makes it a great game, but yet another action horror title with Hollywood thriller elements.

And back to the shooting mechanics being kinda sloppy here, they were just as sloppy in Uncharted 1-3, so if Naughty Dog truly fixed the shooting to be sluggish on purpose, they didn't need to change much, and didn't. What they did however, is actually give you not only more carry on weapons than Uncharted, and access to a bunch more thanks to your bag. Why have the shooting be sloppy if you're going to give the player access to more guns than the semi legal archaeologist who occasionally runs into modern pirates? Seems pretty dumb to me.
I played all these games and can say with hundred percent sure that you're not making sense here. Actually, I was replaying Spec Ops: The Line yesterday, mowing down wave after wave of enemies with hundreds of bullets and freaking rocket launchers, leaving behind dozens of fully-loaded guns on the battlefield. Even on "Normal", The Last of Us don't give to you (or even let you carry) the insane amount of ammo of typical action games.

Of course, not everything is about realism. Joel carrying many guns is obviously a gameplay concession for the greater good of variety and overall enjoyment of the game. To put it bluntly, it's really nice to find some new shiny and useful thing as you're progressing.

It's good to remember that you can't upgrade everything in one playthrough (or even two, if you're not finding many parts), which made the New Game+ a engaging experience.

---

I'm not going into the "The Road" thing because I don't know that particular story, but I disagree completely with your statement that "The Last of Us just plays like what an I Am Legend game would play like". Maybe you're just considering the themes and setting, but ignoring how the actual story unfolds.

My opinion is that TLOU seems pretty safe and standard at first, but it's so expertly created with so many fine details that it was hard to be a cynic for too long. Naughty Dog used old tropes to build something new and exciting, but didn't try to catch me by surprise at every turn like someone desperate for attention. It felt sincere.

It's almost funny how so many people were expecting a dramatic finale involving the death of Joel or Ellie, but we got something much better, more interesting, more subtle and touching in a way that is rare in videogames.