Which is better,which is overrated. Bioshock infinite vs the last of us

[Sande45]

Infinite was just a boring game. Seriously, it was CoD with magic. I was so excited to play it but then it just bored me. Shoot guys, get ammo shoot more. Run out of salts after one vigor use.

That frat house visit ruined this game.

So much this.

I don't know how you can go from Bioshock 1 to that mess. I guess there was too much pressure to sell 6+ million copies or whatever they needed to make up for the long development time so they went full-on Call of Duty with it. Such a shame.

Last of Us on the other hand is one of the best games I've ever played. There are some flaws with the gameplay but nothing too major to hamper the experience.

 

[Goliath100]

[TLoU has story] within[ ]gameplay.

Exactly, it has it within gameplay, not through gameplay. If TLoU had story through gameplay, someone would just explain what the mechanic is a metaphor for.

 

[Casual Shinji]

[TLoU has story] within[ ]gameplay.

Exactly, it has it within gameplay, not through gameplay. If TLoU had story through gameplay, someone would just explain what the mechanic is a metaphor for.

And that's a knock against it how exactly? Yes, it's a story-first game. It's main goal is to tell a story and support it through gameplay. It never claimed otherwise. It in no way invalidates the gameplay from propping the story up.

What was the metaphor behind Gordon Freeman shooting a bunch of guns in Half-Life 2? Was its gameplay completely unnecessary to tell the story? No. Through controlling the character you get to explore the world and the characters in it that make up the story.

And if (as you claim) the gameplay has no bearing on the story in TLoU, it could be replaced with a completely different type of action gameplay and not lose anything. Even similar action gameplay like from Uncharted would clash with the story. The gameplay in TLoU reinforces Joel as a character and the world he lives in, so we can wear his skin as we progress through the story.

 

[DOOM GUY]

I gotta say, I didn't particularly care for either of them, to be honest.

 

[Goliath100]

And that's a knock against it how exactly?.

Because a product within an interactive medium should tell it's narrative through interactive methods.

Yes, it's a story-first game. It's main goal is to tell a story and support it through gameplay.

So how do the gameplay support the story?

The gameplay in TLoU reinforces Joel as a character and the world he lives in, so we can wear his skin as we progress through the story.

You need to be more concrete than that. "Gameplay" is too wide a term. Also, "wear his skin as we progress through the story," is the same as saying "having its prospective while going from A to B." That's not an interactive exclusive thing, which is what we are looking for here.

What was the metaphor behind Gordon Freeman shooting a bunch of guns in Half-Life 2?

Aren't Gordon Freeman (aka "you") awesome? Half Life 2 has the same problem for the most part. Also, HL2 is not really relevant anymore, why that game as your holier than thou game?

 

[mrdude2010]

I prefer Bioshock, and think the Last of Us is overrated. It's not exactly a fair comparison, because I'm not exactly a fan of Naughty Dog in general, so it's just a difference in what type of game I like to play.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Can't they both just be fun games?

 

[Hatebeard]

Didn't enjoy Infinite's cartoonish, over-the-top gameplay. Although it expanded on the original's awesome plot, it also took away a lot from it.

I prefer The Last of Us for getting survival horror right and taking the most risks story/atmosphere-wise, despite the gameplay being basically a stripped-down version of Uncharted. Those games were a bit repetitive but at least they made up for it by bringing a sense of adventure that hasn't been seen for a while in games. Still, it's the best-looking horror game ever made and might be the pinnacle of the genre's storytelling.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

To me, the Last of Us is far superior.

Mainly because I found Infinite boring as hell besides like the 30 minutes of gameplay that's just walking around, because that was hands down the best moments of that game, with way too much boring, tedious combat that isn't awesome.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Is it too late to post this gif?
.......
No?

Spoiler

Neither of them are shit in my opinion. They're both competent, functional, enjoyable games that accomplished their goal. LoU was a character focused post apocalypse story that adequately conveys the message that humans are the real monsters through its gameplay and story. Infinite was about the idea of multiple realities that all video games have. In any game you die, start over, and make different choices so that you don't die again. It was also about sometimes the choices we make don't matter and we end up at the same place.

Naturally, by my avatar, I liked LoU more. I love how Joel is like the opposite of every other video game protagonist. So many can be summed up as, "was a nice tough guy until tragedy struck him (wife/child/both dies) and now he's just a sad bad ass who's also clearly good". In fact, that aptly describes Booker. Joel wasn't a nice guy from the beginning who is struck by a tragedy but moves on with his life and seems like a decent guy on the surface but is really a bad guy

I also wasn't crazy about Infinite and found it a little boring but I'm going to play it one more time before I make that decision. That doesn't mean I think Infinite is overrated. It's a fine game and there isn't really anything to hate about it

Ugh.

Y'know what's overrated? The word "overrated". It's just inherently so fucking smug.

Anyway, I liked 'em both. So there. Hipster that!

At this point, overrated is starting to mean "that thing I don't like is popular. Instead of me having a dissenting opinion, that thing must in fact be praised too much, meaning I'm still right"

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

[TLoU has story] within[ ]gameplay.

Exactly, it has it within gameplay, not through gameplay. If TLoU had story through gameplay, someone would just explain what the mechanic is a metaphor for.

I swear I've already explained this to you based on your familiar avatar but here it goes

Spoiler: How the Last of Us's gameplay conveys the overall message of the game. Spoiler tagged because I will mention late game stuff

LoU is a post apocalypses game like many others with a message like many others: despite all the monsters running around, mankind is in fact the worst monster. How do we know this? The infected are introduced as the main threat but as the game goes on humans become increasingly more threatening. As you get better weapons, encounters with infected become less about "how am I going to survive this encounter?" and more about "how can I get through this encounter using as little resources as possible?" You can easily clear an entire room of infected without firing a single shot. What starts as using shivs and taking on each one at time becomes throwing a glass bottle to get them together and using a bomb or a Molotov. Eventually, you get a flame thrower and the infected are nothing. Humans on the other hand become more and more threatening. They're smarter and can use tactics while even dangerous clickers are blind. They start with weak clubs and pipes and become more dangerous until the end when you're fighting armed soldiers with assault rifles. Hell, humans are the last thing you save Ellie from. You kill Marline specifically because her and the fireflies will come after Ellie no matter what it takes. The infected wouldn't do that.

Also, I think the criticism of LoU's prompts in cut-scenes (and other games like it) is weak at best. Quick time events were hated when they interrupted gameplay with Simon-says button prompts that could kill a player and needed a pointless skills or memorization. In cutscenes, they add player agency where there previously was none. Its not possible to make a game where the player can do any conceivable action so these things can work fine. So many games have a one-sized-fits-all button prompt to do any action. Why is square or x to reload/press the button/pull the lever/revive friend/stab self with plasmid/etc considered ok, but including the same actions in a cutscenes isn't interactive?

 

[sabercrusader]

I liked The Last of Us more, so I guess I'm in that camp. Infinite was good and all, but I really didn't like that ending. It rubbed me the wrong way.

I've also beaten The Last of Us about 5 times, so yeah.

 

[Vigormortis]

Which is overrated?

In all seriousness, both are fantastic games. Both are stand-outs in their respective genres. Both have their flaws. Both are viewed as masterpieces by some and overrated swill by others.

Personally? I can't really pick one over the other.

I enjoyed my time with both games. They both had fantastic gameplay and narratives; each with it's own collection of brilliant moments and flaws. That said, there are quite a number of other contemporary games I'd picked to play again before either, so...

Both are great games. Does one really need to be better than the other?

 

[Mister K]

I will refrain from calling either of the game overrated, because for each kind of a game there is an audience which will like it not because it is popular or something, but because they genially like it.

But, if I were to pick one of those games to play again, I'd go with Infinite.

TLoU had generic setting. So what? Every setting is generic now, it is how you use it that really matters. Plus, unlike in Infinite, there was a reason for having limited inventory: survival theme. However what killed this game for me was Ellies behaviour. She starts off being hostile to Joel, which I can understand, because he is a stranger to her. Then there was this constant complaining about the situation and about Joel refusing to give her a gun. Okay, that was a bit dissapointing, but it was still endurable. What was a final nail in the coffin was how she treated Joels former companion, who was able to supply them with a car. "Hey you! Yeah you! You owe Joel a favor, so you are my ***** now. Bend and wipe my arse." WTF? You never EVER ask someone for a favor in such a manner.

Infinite, while being worse than its predecessors in gameplay department (i.e. not really interesting vigors and weapon limitations), I found to be a lot more enjoyable. Fights, while occuring a bit too often, were interesting. The world was interesting to explore and look at.

But the biggest plus was Elizabeth. I found here great story AND gameplay wise. Unlike companions in other games she does not rush towards danger and she is useful.
As story was told, she was growing from naive young lady to mature woman, but she never lost her charm.

Ellie, however, judging by letsplays, simply became less of an asshole.

Overall, I liked Infinite better.

 

[Casual Shinji]

And that's a knock against it how exactly?.

Because a product within an interactive medium should tell it's narrative through interactive methods.

Which it does. Just as with nearly every proper story-based game, you get the most out of the story by interacting with the gameworld. Sure, you can watch a playthrough on Youtube and know what the story is about. But you can do the same with Silent Hill 2 or Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. That doesn't change the fact that only by interacting with it do you get the full (story) experience.

Yes, it's a story-first game. It's main goal is to tell a story and support it through gameplay.

So how do the gameplay support the story?

The gameplay in TLoU reinforces Joel as a character and the world he lives in, so we can wear his skin as we progress through the story.

You need to be more concrete than that. "Gameplay" is too wide a term. Also, "wear his skin as we progress through the story," is the same as saying "having its prospective while going from A to B." That's not an interactive exclusive thing, which is what we are looking for here.

The way Joel handles violence shows it's become routine to him, as he neither shuns nor revels in it. He never shows off or does special moves, he does what he needs to do and moves on. This is character through gameplay.

Spoiler

As you take control of Ellie in the Winter chapter, she controls roughly the same as Joel except that you feel smaller and weaker. This is obviously because the developers didn't want to create an entirely different control scheme, or have players get accustomed to a new one so far into the game. But the story backs it up perfectly, since Ellie would've inevitably picked up some moves from Joel after having observed him for months; The way he handles stealth and how he crafts items etc.

And beyond that, the Winter chapter shows that Ellie can take care of her own and that she doesn't really need Joel's protection anymore. Which comes into play in a big way at the very end.

There's also the little moment at the bus station where as Joel you get the 'boost' prompt to get Ellie up somewhere, which by now you've done a hundred times, except Ellie's not there and Joel just stands there confused. This is story through gameplay.

What was the metaphor behind Gordon Freeman shooting a bunch of guns in Half-Life 2?

Aren't Gordon Freeman (aka "you") awesome? Half Life 2 has the same problem for the most part. Also, HL2 is not really relevant anymore, why that game as your holier than thou game?

Who said it was my "holier than thou game"? It's an example of a game that told its story very well, but not so much through the raw game mechanics. And still without those game mechanics you could not experience the story in the same way. Half-Life 2 does a lot of its storytelling through the environments, as you traveling through and observe it at your own leisure. Something TLoU has a knack for doing as well.

 

[Goliath100]

Despite all the monsters running around, mankind is in fact the worst monster [of them all].

That's an interesting theme, but not delivered through gameplay. What you're talking about is character designs, not gameplay mechanics.

The way Joel handles violence shows it's become routine to him, as he neither shuns nor revels in it. He never shows off or does special moves, he does what he needs to do and moves on. This is character through gameplay.

As you take control of Ellie in the Winter chapter, she controls roughly the same as Joel except that you feel smaller and weaker. This is obviously because the developers didn't want to create an entirely different control scheme, or have players get accustomed to a new one so far into the game. But the story backs it up perfectly, since Ellie would've inevitably picked up some moves from Joel after having observed him for months; The way he handles stealth and how he crafts items etc.

And beyond that, the Winter chapter shows that Ellie can take care of her own and that she doesn't really need Joel's protection anymore. Which comes into play in a big way at the very end.

You do know that we are talking about player actions? Interactive storytelling? Mechanics? Because you are talking about Ludonarrative Dissonance, or more precisely how the game don't have it. Which is what people who have no idea of what storytelling through mechanics is, think it is.

There's also the little moment at the bus station where as Joel you get the 'boost' prompt to get Ellie up somewhere, which by now you've done a hundred times, except Ellie's not there and Joel just stands there confused. This is story through gameplay.

Yeah, that it actually is, but nothing else is.

Who said it was my "holier than thou game"?

Because there is no reason to bring it up here, other than a dare to to say something negative about a so-called classic. Same with Silent Hill 2 and PoP:SoT. Atleast use something within the same generation.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Despite all the monsters running around, mankind is in fact the worst monster [of them all].

That's an interesting theme, but not delivered through gameplay. What you're talking about is character designs, not gameplay mechanics.

And yet I gave you a nice spoilered opinion of how the game does that by

Spoiler

making human enemies much more dangerous than the infected as the game progresses. Humans will always be more dangerous and deliberately evil than animal-like monsters

If that's not good enough for you then play the game yourself. Not that it matters. I could write a book about this game and you should still be stuck in your unfounded opinion. And even if the story wasn't there, I still would have liked it for its uncompromising, realistic, stealth gameplay. It was challenging, fun, and there's several way to handle any encounter. I would play it several more times just for that. The gameplay also meshes well with the story. I've played several games recently where the protagonist seem invincible during gameplay and vulnerable during scripted events. It doesn't feel like that in LoU. It's one of the few games I've played were the story and gameplay are extremely consistent

Edit: and since you seem to have some very specific criteria in mind for "interactive", do you mind naming a game does interactive story telling well?

 

[Casual Shinji]

You do know that we are talking about player actions? Interactive storytelling? Mechanics? Because you are talking about Ludonarrative Dissonance, or more precisely how the game don't have it. Which is what people who have no idea of what storytelling through mechanics is, think it is.

How about you give some examples then of storytelling through mechanics since you appear to be such an expert on the subject. Because really, if TLoU doesn't suffice in the slightest, I can't think of any games apart from Team Ico that do.

Who said it was my "holier than thou game"?

Because there is no reason to bring it up here, other than a dare to to say something negative about a so-called classic. Same with Silent Hill 2 and PoP:SoT. Atleast use something within the same generation.

Well yes, there was a reason to bring it up, because it too is a perfectly functioning game with a good story where the mechanics weren't wholly intwined in the story. And SH2 and PoP: SoT could be replaced with any other well regarded story-driven action game. The point there being that you could just watch a Let's Play to get the story, but still not experience it to its fullest because you're not interacting with the game. Since that's your apparent critcism against TLoU; That the gameplay doesn't matter one bit in regards to the story.

But whatever, I'm sure any other example or explaination I give will be shot down instantly by your expert knowledge.

 

[go-10]

both games are extremely popular therefore both are overrated pieces of crap that filthy casuals like

personally I really liked both. While Last of Us offers more replay value and I'm a sucker for natural selection type stories. The DLC didn't do much for me as I felt the story needed to move forward not further explore an already great character. Iwould have rather seen what Joel's brother did after establishing the town or maybe see Ish's story.

Infinite offers a better story the second time around. I dunno why but the 2nd time I played through Infinite I liked it more because I already knew the overall story and was able to understand the world around me more, and the DLC is actually good and offers some interesting points.

so as to which game is better... my vote goes for Tomb Raider XD

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I think the last of us was the better game but I do not believe either game is over-rated. Both were excellent and easily worthy of the acclaim they received.