The Last of Us is no Masterpiece

[Evonisia]

I'm afraid you're wrong on that. The very first Bloater encounter at the school will chase you around the place despite being blind and is basically a Boss fight, the later Bloaters certainly won't if you're sneaky enough.

If you startle one they'll generally start to throw spore bombs, but only at the place where the sound originated from. If you shoot one while crouched and sneak away, they'll target the place from where you fired that shot. This is why you can lure them (as well as Clickers) to one spot by throwing a bottle or brick. This is ofcourse assuming a Clicker or Runner hasn't alerted the entire horde to your presence.

If you disturb a Bloater he'll remain in a state of aggitation, stomping around and throwing spore bombs, but he will loose you if you remain quiet and stay out of its way. The Bloater in the university I killed (after getting rid of the Clickers first) by simply leading him around through the rooms, always staying well out of reach and sneaking away after each shot I fired.

Fair enough, though I still took a disliking to them (besides their look, their look is wonderful).

I only got caught once by the Bloaters outside the obligatory boss fights (two if I remember right), and that was the sewer ones. I killed the generator room Bloater too fast to test that out. Maybe it was because the Clickers happen to be with them like you said. I'd actually managed to clear the Runners that time around. Then again in the Sewer there's one room to hide in, so I really couldn't test the run away and hide when most of the area is tainted.

The stealth one I just avoided (and avoided all the Clickers anyway), so I can't really say what that one would do until I replay it (whenever that will be).

 

[Casual Shinji]

Fair enough, though I still took a disliking to them (besides their look, their look is wonderful).

I only got caught once by the Bloaters outside the obligatory boss fights (two if I remember right), and that was the sewer ones. I killed the generator room Bloater too fast to test that out. Maybe it was because the Clickers happen to be with them like you said. I'd actually managed to clear the Runners that time around. Then again in the Sewer there's one room to hide in, so I really couldn't test the run away and hide when most of the area is tainted.

The stealth one I just avoided (and avoided all the Clickers anyway), so I can't really say what that one would do until I replay it (whenever that will be).

Yeah, the Bloater in the university is really the first one you can actively stealth, though ironically by that point you will have picked up the flamethrower which makes short work of all infected.

There's two things I would take out of the game if I could; One is that completely random bandit area you come across while searching for Ellie on horseback, and two is the flamethrower. The infected already become a lot easier during the second half of the game, but the flamethrower just turns every infected encounter into pest control. I never even pick it up anymore.

 

[Evonisia]

Fair enough, though I still took a disliking to them (besides their look, their look is wonderful).

I only got caught once by the Bloaters outside the obligatory boss fights (two if I remember right), and that was the sewer ones. I killed the generator room Bloater too fast to test that out. Maybe it was because the Clickers happen to be with them like you said. I'd actually managed to clear the Runners that time around. Then again in the Sewer there's one room to hide in, so I really couldn't test the run away and hide when most of the area is tainted.

The stealth one I just avoided (and avoided all the Clickers anyway), so I can't really say what that one would do until I replay it (whenever that will be).

Yeah, the Bloater in the university is really the first one you can actively stealth, though ironically by that point you will have picked up the flamethrower which makes short work of all infected.

There's two things I would take out of the game if I could; One is that completely random bandit area you come across while searching for Ellie on horseback, and two is the flamethrower. The infected already become a lot easier during the second half of the game, but the flamethrower just turns every infected encounter into pest control. I never even pick it up anymore.

There's nothing like having a tragic bloated figure look all morose and tormented by the demons which have overwhelmed him for like ten years stand crying by a wall without you just showing up and popping his arse with fire before running off to loot a shiv from the cupboard.

Maybe that's why they do that horrific jaw snap animation.

 

[Vivi22]

- Listen mode is pointless because you can just listen yourself to the audio.

I've got some really damn good headphones I can use to listen to the audio, not everyone has. Some people aren't going to be able to make out directional sound simple as that.

Right now I just have my 2 crappy PC speakers as my receiver has a cold solder joint and is in protect mode, and I can still make out where the enemies are by listening. You just need 2 good speakers really, all I hook up to my receiver are the left, right, and center speakers (plus sub) because you don't need to rears to hear stuff behind you.

And some people dont have that. Some people only have their TV speakers.

I played most of TLOU on my TV speakers. 2 independent speakers are enough, which most TVs have. Some old ass TVs only have that one mono speaker but those are CRTs, which barely anyone has.

If you honestly think that two TV speakers, regardless of the quality of the speakers, the layout and acoustics of the room, the hearing of the individual playing, and a variety of other factors, are anywhere near as effective as surround sound or headphones for picking out the direction of sound in a game then you're deluding yourself.

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people would struggle with anything more than judging the rough distance of a sound and which side it's on with nothing but TV speakers in your average living room.

 

[FFMaster]

I like how this thread has turned into argument about Dark Souls.

The listen mode thing made for interesting stealthing about, but I also feel like it kinda wrecks the story. I'm still really pissed off at the scene where you are inside a building, mere feet away from a Clicker (who can only detect through sound), and Ellie whistles. Mr Main Character than asks what she's doing and she says that she's trying to learn. *****, there's a death plant monster right outside, stop doing that!!

That started to amuse me after a while, after sneaking through a room full of Clickers, again a enemy that can only detect you through sound. You get past that area and just as you do some character would proclaim, loudly, "phew, that was scary!!" Shut up for fuck sake, they can still hear you, they are still only over there.

As for the game itself, its good, it took me a while to realise this. Its not perfect, it does have its fair share of flaws like the one I've mentioned, but it is still a good game.

Yep this is one of those times when it needs to be pointing out, there are a few people, myself included, that dislike the amount of "omg best game ever" this game seems to get because its just not that good.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE GAME IS BAD.

The game is good at times, but its not the best game ever. It has some major issues, the AI being one of them , and the AI being basically ignored by the enemies adds another issue, which is the game play and story segregation. You need to protect people, but from what? If you just sat there they would never actually attack them because they only go after you. Yahtzee even pointed it out in his zero punctuation. I think my best moment with the AI was right at the start, when going through a warehouse and my ally ran directly into a guard who was shouting "come out , i know your there", guard carried on walking... and completely ignored her.

The story seemed a bit odd as well, as the ending seemed to be the opposite of what you would except given the characters and the development.The gunplay was average, monsters that are randomly resistant to stabbing. Oh and more game play ans story segregation when your sent in to clear our a bunch of clickers armed with only a shiv... while one of your allies has a perfectly good hunting knife they refuse to hand over, and don;t forget the whistling incident.

So again, not a bad game, but not best game ever either

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

It was by far the best looking PS3 game graphically that came out --- the environments, the detail, weather --- it did a great job at immersing you into the game itself. I really didn't see anything that you have brought it which made the game bad, the sneaking and listening was mainly to give some context of how you can feel where the bad guys were, just about every game has that with some stealth in it.


I could even look over the game mechanics on this one. What doesn't make this game a " Master Piece" is that it came out during a period of media where many stories like it had already came out or have been written ie - Walking Dead. There were many scenes in that game that spoke of WD or The Road and other gritty end of the world stories, games, and shows.

There are also rampant cliches ad hoc.

It was a beautiful piece of video game art by far, the voice acting was superb --- it was just redundant and well...done before. There was also a lack of bad guy diversity. Ever notice in these Zombie flicks, the bad guys are all stereotyped country hicks wearing den-min clothing and shaggy beards? I have a news flash for the regional prejudices of our culture. Not everyone that lives in the country acts like Merle and Darrel. Also --- its always that every other human being is pretty much going to stab, rape, and pillage you. There aren't any middle of the road characters or people that act normal. They are all crazy and psychotic. I suppose I am in the minority of this too but the content and how when you played Ellie and screwed up, the amount of abuse, neglect, and beatings on the child was unnecessary.

What does separate this game from the rest of the pact was indeed the ending however and for that, The Last of Us, although it doesn't in my view stand as THE GREATEST GAME OF OUR TIME, it is one of the strongest games made thus far. I've been finding that a lot of endings to these so called AAA games have been absolutely terrible or their so contrary to the story written that you realize they made a bad ending just because of the belief that only tragedy is art.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yep this is one of those times when it needs to be pointing out, there are a few people, myself included, that dislike the amount of "omg best game ever" this game seems to get because its just not that good.

Well, that's because it's subjective, isn't it? There's plenty of people who call Half-Life 2 the best game ever, and I remember a long while back we used to get thread after thread of people saying "Half-Life 2 isn't that good". Because apparently the fans of the game needed to be made aware that what they liked was actually not good, since the people who didn't like it obviously knew better then they did.

The story seemed a bit odd as well, as the ending seemed to be the opposite of what you would except given the characters and the development.

How is that? It was so natural for the characters to act they way they did in the end, that I totally expected Naughty Dog not to go through with it and instead opt for some lame redemption/sacrifice ending. Which thankfully they didn't.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

There is a point on the left side where the sniper can see you no matter what. It's right near the start, either when you move up behind the tree on the raised area or when you hop over the wall on the lower area.

Lolwut? Having to use distractions is automatically bad design?

How them straws holding up buddy?

You can move up behind the tree without being in line of sight, the tree blocks the sniper's view. Not to mention the sniper is looking down a scope at the rest of the group that is supposed to be distracting him (which was the plan Joel outlined in the cutscene, not my made up plan). And, the game doesn't allow you to shoot the sniper either.

Throwing objects is a really cheap stealth mechanic for the most part. Throw a bottle anywhere and the enemy (only ever ONE enemy) will come to investigate whether it makes sense or not (like you've thrown 3 bottles and 3 people have not returned, yet the 4th guy will still go investigate the next one). You can keep throwing bottles over and over again into the same corner and take down every enemy one by one. Something like pulling a fire alarm or a phone call are much more sensible distractions (obviously not something for TLOU). The AI is one of the main factors that makes a stealth game work, you want the AI to behave like normal humans. Of course, this doesn't apply for the infected.

Eh, Zelda games have that as well.
If you have your shield up and Z-target someone, you will move backwards while facing the enemy.
However if you don't Z-target the enemy, you will just turn around even with your shield up. As far as I know, this is the case with pretty much every single 3rd person game I've played that has a lock-on feature. Having the enemy locked on will turn on the "strafe" while having it off you have the regular control mode.

Honestly, it would be way worse if it was the way you want it to be.

Also I agree. TLOU is overrated. While I don't own a PS3, I played it for a while at a friends place. It's a 7.5/10 at best. While the story may or may not be interesting (didn't finish the game so I wouldn't know, but from the spoilers on the internet it seems meh), the gameplay is above average but nothing special. There is only so much you can do to hide the gameplay flaws with a good story, music and graphics.

As a note, my scoring system goes with 5 as a average and not 8 like it seems that most people do. 7-8 is good, 9 is great and 10 is almost impossible. It's reserved for those games that can be said have revolutionized gaming.

I haven't played a 3D Zelda. Very few games even have lock-on anymore. I wouldn't have even used lock-on in Dark Souls like ever if I could strafe and backpedal with a shield raised. I find lock-on to be a pretty much useless mechanic, it has certain times where it's useful but you can do at least 90% of things better without lock-on.

5 is average for me as well. I don't see why 7-8 is average for game reviewers though as that causes you to only have a 3 range from average to best ever, then all those games have scores with barely any spread between them. Plus, every other medium uses 5 for average as well. That was the main point of the whole thread really. Not that TLOU is bad, but how can 88 of 98 professional reviews be a 9 and higher? Game reviewers try to objective score games instead of subjectively score them. You can dislike/hate a game (and score it below average) even if the mechanics are sound and the game is very playable, which you don't see happening.

If you honestly think that two TV speakers, regardless of the quality of the speakers, the layout and acoustics of the room, the hearing of the individual playing, and a variety of other factors, are anywhere near as effective as surround sound or headphones for picking out the direction of sound in a game then you're deluding yourself.

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people would struggle with anything more than judging the rough distance of a sound and which side it's on with nothing but TV speakers in your average living room.

I played most of the game on my 32" LG's speakers and could tell the general area of the enemies just fine. I have a receiver (but it has a cold solder joint) and I played online shooters on it with just 3 speakers (front, right, center) and could pinpoint the exact location of my opponents. There's really no reason to have all 5 or 7 speakers.

I know some people at Naughty Dog played Gears of War, Uncharted rips the shooting off from it

That Gears ripped off Kill.Switch, which ripped off Winback. Gears did nothing unique, it probably just executed cover-based shooting the best at the time, it's not they came up with some idea no one ever thought of.

I disagree with you here. Games have better on average storylines and dialogue then movies and TV shows... and even books. You give the other arts way too much credit here, the average is LOW as F*CK!

Oh god no. There's probably less than 5 games a year with good writing. Just the way games are developed are a hindrance to the writers because the game levels and mechanics are done first and the writer has to link it all together instead of the story being written first.

There's very few games I'd actually "watch" if there was no gameplay (just cutscenes) vs the fact that I watch a bunch of TV shows and movies. Yeah, 90% of everything is crap but a TV show/movie is completely dependent on story/characters, there's no gameplay to save shit writing like a game.

But saying the game is bad because the gameplay has a "sluggish" feeling?

I didn't say the gameplay was sluggish. I said the camera is sluggish and there's no sensitivity option. I'm sure even horror 1st-person games like Amnesia have a camera sensitivity option and a slow camera isn't forced upon the player, correct me if I'm wrong because I don't play those games really. In a 3rd-person shooter, you aim with the free look camera as when you hit say L1 to aim, your crosshair should be on the enemy thus aiming with the free look camera. Any kind of shooter should allow the player to change the camera sensitivity so they can aim properly. All 3 Uncharted's have the same sluggish, nonadjustable camera as TLOU, they just don't understand shooters yet keep making them and repeating the same mistakes and never learning (in fact, moving backwards instead of forwards even).

The story seemed a bit odd as well, as the ending seemed to be the opposite of what you would except given the characters and the development.

How is that? It was so natural for the characters to act they way they did in the end, that I totally expected Naughty Dog not to go through with it and instead opt for some lame redemption/sacrifice ending. Which thankfully they didn't.

Exactly, Joel would make that same choice no matter what.

 

[Evonisia]

Snip

OK, then they decided to base the shooting off a very successful, acclaimed game that was quite popular during the development cycle of the first game. It's like how Call of Duty constantly rips off stuff previous other games have done which were not original in those (like Theatre for Halo 3) but were a popular feature or were in a popular game.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

OK, then they decided to base the shooting off a very successful, acclaimed game that was quite popular during the development cycle of the first game. It's like how Call of Duty constantly rips off stuff previous other games have done which were not original in those (like Theatre for Halo 3) but were a popular feature or were in a popular game.

To me, last-gen (PS3/360) was where 3rd-person shooters came into their own. TPSs, when made prior, just weren't that good mechanically. The aiming and shooting just didn't feel right whether we are talking like a GTA, Mercenaries, SOCOM, etc. The proper over-the-shoulder aiming just wasn't there, quite a few still relied on lock-on. Resident Evil 4 was a landmark TPS just in good aiming ability and it's definitely not a fast-paced or cover-based TPS like an Uncharted or Gears. Something just happened on PS3/360 where TPSs just got good for whatever reason, probably a combination of better hardware and execution. Even the Metal Gear Solid franchise instantly became a great TPS, the best mechanically sound TPS still is MGS4 as its online component, Metal Gear Online, is still the BEST online shooter I ever played, the aiming is smoothest of all the TPSs I've played and it had no blasted aim-assist. Then, you have games like Mass Effect (RPG) and Splinter Cell (stealth game) that have become very competent TPSs, and are both better TPSs than any TPS from last-gen. I don't think it was anyone ripping off anyone, just that developers figured out the genre, and Gears was just the 1st to execute. It's not like no one thought of the idea of a cover-based shooter, it just wasn't done well yet.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Mate you give the other arts WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much credit.
Good writing? Was there even a movie this ywar with passable writing? Or a TV show?
The majority of books fall in the abyss that is early 90s FPS plots with more dialogue (unoriginal) and some random BS to simulate conflict.

It is not that there arent decent execusions from time to time, and even good ones. Its just that the average is not low. It is negative...

I said 90% of everything is crap, yet I'm giving other mediums too much credit?

I don't watch many movies anymore as TV shows have really taken off in the last 5-10 years and allow for more character development and narrative. The Lego Movie and Guardians were both awesome. Veronica Mars was pretty good, the show was so good. I'm sure there are plenty of movies with good writing this year as there are 38 movies with 90% or higher Tomato rating on RottenTomatoes. There loads of good TV now; hell, the 2 new summer shows, Extant and The Strain, are both good. You got Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, Modern Family, Doctor Who (yeah, it's been on a downturn since Moffat took over), Utopia, Archer, Brooklyn Nine-nine, How I Met Your Mother, Parks and Rec, Community, Sherlock, Homeland, etc. There's a bunch of high-rated shows I haven't even checked out either.

I'm looking at the best games of 2014 and the only games that are standing out with good writing are the Telltale games and Obsidian's South Park. Most game writers like Dan Houser are so overrated, the guy is just a complete hack and would be called out on his crap if he were writing TV or screenplays. And the range of characters in games is so horrible. Where's the House's, Veronica Mar's, Doctor Who's, Charlie Crew's, Walter White's, Malcolm Reynold's, Moss's, etc. of video games? They just don't exist.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Phoenix is free to like/ dislike any game he/ she chooses. But I have noticed a pattern of contrived complaining about popular games from their part quite often. Just ask him/ her about why the dislike Dark Souls and be prepared for the most inane things ever (like having to lock on an enemy to not turn 180 degrees with your shield up... I could never figure out why this was a problem for him/ her).

I take Phoenixmgs with a grain of salt.

Edit: Oh wait, I see that someone already brought up that point with them again.

Did you not read the initial post? I said TLOU is a great game...

Yeah, and an RPG with a completely useless core stat is such a well thought-out RPG that is perhaps the best game ever [/sarcasm]

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Please re-read my post.

Where did I say that you like/ dislike TLOU?
I said you are free to like/ dislike any game you choose, but have noticed a pattern of contrived complaining about popular games on your part. Usually inane points like the one I presented.

Next point: passive-agressive hyperbole much?
Where in my post did I mention that Dark Souls is perhaps the best game ever? And what is this out of left field about a completely useless core stat? Are you referring to the oft dump stat known as "Resistance"? Like the shield argument, I'm not sure why this is a sticking point with you. You can freely choose to make it a dump stat or not. Still it's a minor nitpick at best (and another inane argument) as many RPGs have dump stats.

Besides, I have to take your opinions with a grain of salt. I do recall that you believe Kingdoms of Amalur to be better than Dark Souls - which I just can't fathom. But hey, at least you enjoyed Resonance of Fate and Dragon's Dogma, so we can at least agree on those.

My point with this thread wasn't to complain about TLOU but to highlight the problem with game reviews. How does a game have 98 reviews and 88 of them are 9 or higher? You don't see that in any other medium. Game reviewers have a hive mind and try to objectively rate games instead of subjectively rating them. You can find a game below average even if all the game mechanics work properly just because you hated something else about it. Plus, the whole 7 out of 10 being average instead of 5 inflates scores across the board so then when a game critic really likes a game it has to be a 9 or 10 instead of being a 7 or an 8.

Good RPGs don't have a dump stat that ALL characters use as a dump stat. A wizard in DnD may make strength his dump stat because he doesn't need strength while a rogue may make intelligence (the wizard's main stat) his dump stat. Every core stat should have its purpose in the game. Resistance has no purpose in Dark Souls for any character. Then, you have fire magic not being dependent on a stat thus making character levels unbalanced. When at the same level, a character that is a full-on sorcerer in Dark Souls will be a worse character then a character that levels up pyromancy because the character with pyromancy can have both kick-ass magic and kick-ass melee while the scorcerer can only have kick-ass scoreries. If you look at sound RPGs like DnD, every magic is tied to a stat so you can't just ignore a stat and have awesome magic ability as that would instantly make that the best DnD class in the game. Dark Souls is flawed at the very foundation of its RPG mechanics.

Kingdoms of Amalur, while not anything special, allows you to play as a rogue (something you can't do in Dark Souls) and it has skills that aren't for combat purposes like all actual RPGs have, RPGs aren't just about fighting enemies.

 

[ilayoeli]

The Last of Us - gaming first third-person Oscar bait

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

So all of that to argue semantics, review scores and subjective opinions... okay then.
Maybe they all just thought it was a great game that deserved a 9/10?
I would rate it a 9/10. Does that mean I'm part of some conspiratorial hive mind?

If you don't think it does that is your opinion. But it doesn't invalidate the opinions of others.
Sorry, but you just aren't that important. I have noticed a trend with you though. If something is not widely done by others, then it is invalidated, in your opinion, as everything must be a homogeneous mess (which is odd considering the statement about hive minds).

(Paraphrase
"No other game does shields like that, so Dark Souls shouldn't either."
"No other media reviews like that, so TLOU shouldn't be either."

You do realize that variety is the spice of life.

It's not about invalidating opinions. Just from reading Greg Tito's review of GTAV, I bet he didn't enjoy most of his time playing GTAV yet he scored it as a 7/10 because the he felt the gameplay was good and its technical accomplishments. It's OK to score a game average or below average if the gameplay is fine but you hated something else about it that made you not enjoy the game. I actually have a friend that couldn't finish GTAV for the same reason, he hated the characters. Tito also stated how bad Dan Houser is at writing too. After playing Max Payne 3 and trying to play through Red Dead Redemption, I'm not playing another game that he writes ever again because I can't stand his writing.

If variety is the spice of life where is it in game reviews? Whether we are talking about a high scoring game like TLOU or something like Watch Dogs. You go to IGN to see the game scored say an 8.5 and then GameSpot scores it the standard 0.5 lower. There's something inherently wrong with that. What about Final Fantasy XIII, probably one of the most known love it/hate it games yet 73 of 83 reviewers gave positive scores. The only negative score out of 83 reviews is Jim Sterling, one of the only people that reviews games they way they should be reviewed regardless if you agree with his opinion or not.

As for your arguments on Dark Souls - weren't they addressed in the sequel? Isn't Pyromancy now tied to a stat? Doesn't Resistance now affect Estus consumption speed and invincibility frames when rolling among other things? Still, they are minor points. They can easily be ignored and do not affect the playability of the game.

It's not like say, the completely broken AI programming mechanic in DA:O (PS3). That affected my enjoyment because the AI never followed the instructions I put forth and combat was a clusterfuck because of it. Dark Souls does not suffer a problem like this. It is not perfect (what game is) but is, subjectively for a great deal of people, considered to be one of the finest in the last gen.

You do not care for it, and that is okay - but even you must be aware that the things you rail against are just not considered an issue to most of us. I've never had a problem with the shield. I don't use (nor care if I don't) Resistance. And using pyromancy or not is a choice so again, I don't see it as an issue.

Unless it is an RPG that foregoes story for combat and lore -- like the Souls series. You don't need non-combat skills in the Souls series, because they serve no purpose in that world. It's all about context.

Dark Souls was the sequel, it was From's 2nd try, not their first. To make those type of core system mistakes on your first try is pretty bad, let alone your 2nd try.

What hindered my enjoyment of Dark Souls was that I couldn't play really any other style but one. The game really forces melee combat on you. Regardless if you're a Dex or Strength character, you're still playing basically the same way, block enemy attack, then attack afterwards. Dex and Strength characters aren't supposed to play so similarly. Even standard combat skills like stealth aren't apart of Dark Souls. Dark Souls has AI problems too. My enjoyment was hindered when such standard tactics like strafing and shooting arrows couldn't be combated by the enemy AI, the game has almost no enemy AI. Even when not playing cheap, the AI is such a pushover.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

Every game has obvious things that stand out because not everyone is an experienced gamer

I'm not exaggerating when I say people would be completely lost if those cues weren't subtly implanted in the game

The only thing I agree with is that the friendly AI sucks at behaving normally, but I see why they made them bad in combat.

People would literally breeze through combat if the AI was great at killing because they have unlimited ammo. I think a way they could have gotten around the AI doing dumb things in the sneaking parts is by having us control Ellie or whoever by clicking R3 where the player is aiming. That way if they get seen its your fault.

Of course this would get annoying because you'd have to now account for your allies getting to the end of an encounter as well as yourself so exploring clicker infested areas would become a pain in the ass especially on harder difficulties where killing everything isn't an option