Support NeoGAF

[Certinty]

Personally I thought the game was pretty good, but definitely one of the most overrated games of last gen if not the most overrated one.

The beginning was amazing but from then on there wasn't anything that made me go "wow". Gameplay felt repetitive and the AI was a joke at times as well as the story being very predictable (to me at least).

Either way my first playthrough was a good experience, but when I started the game a second time I just couldn't get into it again as there was nothing 'new'.

 

[M°°nblade]

Whatever it was, I just found myself unable to get "into" the game like I usually can with most games. I felt like I was struggling to just get to the next part, and I kept wondering where this amazing game was that everyone kept talking about.

Does it get better? Does it change up later, or is it going to be more of this for another eight hours? Because I'm not sure I can slog my way through it if that's the case. People talk about how great the ending is, and I've done a good job of not spoiling it for myself, so I could still experience that if I can just get to it.

OP, I had the same feelings about it during the first 10 hours. You'll have to bite through it.

I couldn't get 'into' the game as well because frankly the game somehow makes you feel 'uncomfortable'. It's probably because the beginning of the game is very scripted and moves too fast imo. You will soon find the drive you're looking for to continue this game as the story unfolds, the relationship between Joel and Ellie grows, you'll get a hand on the routine of the gameplay and the lore of the universe is brought to you through the chapters.

I'm addicted to factions right now.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

Also I know many people consider TLoU GOTY/GOTG for its SP but people should really try its Mp as well. Its amazing. Gears of War, mixed with socom and the crafting system. Really fun playing survivors.

 

[Erico]

I think the difference in opinion on TLOU really does align with how much you accept the direction of AAA gaming becoming more and more like interactive movies.
TLOU is pretty much the poster boy of these high-budget, cinematic-focused games.

The production values, storytelling, voice acting were top-notch, yes. But it feels like TLOU is just paying lipservice to gameplay, mostly centered around tepid corridor setpieces where you go through the motions to get to the next plot sequence. Even many of those that heap praise on TLOU's story can only describe the gameplay euphemistically as "solid".

Now, should a game be given such high praise for telling a good story, at the expense mediocre gameplay? I'd say no, that undermines the interactivity that is fundamental the gaming medium. Still, even with lacking gameplay, TLOU is a good game. But to be so widely considered THE game of the generation just makes me feel like my time has passed.

Edit:
This poster sums it up quite well

it's still a AAA blockbuster with all the mechanically conservative pitfalls which comes with the territory.

personally, i find that naughty dog's games never really play to the strengths of the medium and follow a lineage closer to something like dragon's lair than any of the games i can sink neck deep in to. it's clear that some people find that even surface level interaction helps draw them in to what are largely non-participatory cinematic experiences and can elevate their enjoyment of them past even their favourite movies, and for those people, TLOU is gaming's high water mark.

personally, i find something like hotline miami to be far more compelling in its delivery of narrative due to the developers ability to directly wire the games mechanics into its telling. when i plugged myself into HM every, synapse fired on a participatory level. compare this with the feeling generated by naughty dog titles, where participation feels like little more than guiding the lead character through a deliberately paced cutscene.

but then, i'm an emergent narrative junky. the narrative generated by a six player civ game between friends or a twelve hour slog through chernarus is where the medium's ability to tell stories really shines.

 

[SmokyDave]

I didn't own a PS3 but I watched a full playthrough on YouTube and yeah I get it. I wouldn't want to play a game like this but considering I didn't have a PS3 I have to consider the other titles I'd be accustomed to as a PS3 owner, Uncharted, God of War, Infamous. All incredibly cinematic 3rd person experiences, so it makes sense TLOU trumps them. But yeah it's not really my thing.

This post will get ignored tho cos Sony Side.

I've seen people feel they can fully assess a game by watching someone else play it on Youtube a few times now. I can't wrap my head around it. Is it some satirical commentary on the nature of cinematic games?

Honestly, if you haven't played the game at all, you're better off not commenting. That's nothing to do with 'Sony Side' and everything to do with 'Gaming Side'.

 

[StuBurns]

I've seen people feel they can fully assess a game by watching someone else play it on Youtube a few times now. I can't wrap my head around it. Is it some satirical commentary on the nature of cinematic games?

Indeed, maybe someone could comment on the storytelling, and only that's a maybe, but the gameplay is all about improvisation, it's one of the games I think would transfer the worst from watching it.

 

[Bold One]

Having read through the thread I have surmised that with a game like TLOU where the HYPE is ironically like a virus.

wait a year or two to play the game (caveat being the chances of getting spoiled).

I waited 8 months to play TLOU and would rate it as the best game I have ever played, while its story may not be unique (lets face it, no story is), its narrative, its story -telling and the way the world has been built just oozes desolation and dread.

the characters are outstanding and well realized.

though I wish we would have gotten the chance to learn more about the world and how the virus began and why most of the clickers were female....

Going into a game based on the opinion and Hype of others is often poisonous to the experience, then again maybe its just not for you.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

I think the difference in opinion on TLOU really does align with how much you accept the direction of AAA gaming becoming more and more like interactive movies.
TLOU is pretty much the poster boy of these high-budget, cinematic-focused games.

The production values, storytelling, voice acting were top-notch, yes. But it feels like TLOU is just paying lipservice to gameplay, mostly centered around tepid corridor setpieces where you go through the motions to get to the next plot sequence. Even many of those that heap praise on TLOU's story can only describe the gameplay euphemistically as "solid".

Now, should a game be given such high praise for telling a good story, at the expense mediocre gameplay? I'd say no, that undermines the interactivity that is fundamental the gaming medium. Still, even with lacking gameplay, TLOU is a good game. But to be so widely considered THE game of the generation just makes me feel like my time has passed.

Yeah no.

TLoU has fantastic gameplay as well as cinematics. Was RE4's gameplay mediocre? They are both TPS shooters that have depth despite looking simple. This notion that TLoU is loved just for its cinematics is completely false. Its a big reason no doubt, but look at every single review, look at the player reviews, look at the posts on GOTY thread, the gameplay is solid, tense and varied. It also is incredibly dynamic, due to the amount of options given to the player.

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

It's the shitty framerate which puts you off. The game play in concept is nice. The pay version is targeting to fix that issue but probably will not succeed.

Why am I not surprised.

 

[hal9001]

You as the player are supposed to grow and care about these characters as the game progresses. The first third of the game might make you feel apprehensive towards them but by the end of the game without realising it you hopefully will have come to have a deep connection with them. At least finish the game before you come to a final opinion and even if you still don't like it then thats fine.

 

[SmokyDave]

Indeed, maybe someone could comment on the storytelling, and only that's a maybe, but the gameplay is all about improvisation, it's one of the games I think would transfer the worst from watching it.

I just can't fathom how differently the game would appear if I had no control over medkit or molotov. No choice between stealth, sniping or shotgun. If the sense of exploring an environment was completely removed. Even little stuff like the optional incidental dialogue that the Youtube player may or may not trigger.

I like watching Quick Looks on Giant Bomb, but I can't imagine sitting and watching someone else play a whole game.

 

[Ryaaan14]

I've seen people feel they can fully assess a game by watching someone else play it on Youtube a few times now. I can't wrap my head around it. Is it some satirical commentary on the nature of cinematic games?

Honestly, if you haven't played the game at all, you're better off not commenting. That's nothing to do with 'Sony Side' and everything to do with 'Gaming Side'.

Ok I'll report back in a few years to add a measly "I feel the same way" after I get a PS3 at Goodwill for $20.

I love so many games, but I can admit after two decades of playing games it's easy to evaluate a game on video. It's heartbreaking I know, and I would never dare to do it with a game I plan on controlling myself. But many times I prefer watching a game from start to finish before I judge it based on platform or genre. Forgive me.

 

[valkyre]

I think the difference in opinion on TLOU really does align with how much you accept the direction of AAA gaming becoming more and more like interactive movies.
TLOU is pretty much the poster boy of these high-budget, cinematic-focused games.

The production values, storytelling, voice acting were top-notch, yes. But it feels like TLOU is just paying lipservice to gameplay, mostly centered around tepid corridor setpieces where you go through the motions to get to the next plot sequence. Even many of those that heap praise on TLOU's story can only describe the gameplay euphemistically as "solid".

Now, should a game be given such high praise for telling a good story, at the expense mediocre gameplay? I'd say no, that undermines the interactivity that is fundamental the gaming medium. Still, even with lacking gameplay, TLOU is a good game. But to be so widely considered THE game of the generation just makes me feel like my time has passed.

Edit:
This poster sums it up quite well

Would it be possible to explain how the gameplay of TLOU is being hold back by its cinematic presence? I mean what is it that TLOU should have in terms of gameplay that it doesnt?

I honestly believe that the gameplay was very well done for what the game was supposed to be (a survival action game) as well as the technical limitations in the format it was developed for (ps3).

I really dont see what was missing from the game. It had proper shooting mechanics (rough deliberately) considering it is a survival game and not call of duty, it had crafting and upgrade systems, very intuitive melle combat, tense moments, good pace, collectibles (story related as well and not just irelevant stuff) good stealth system...

I mean i really dont feel they could have done much more with what they had (ps3) and what they aimed for. And i certainly never thought that the game took control off my hands, in fact most of the time the player was in control.

I dont get how for example TLOU gameplay is criticized when most games even great ones dont offer that much more.

I am not saying it is perfect, by all means it could be even better, but always in mind that it is a ps3 game what more could it have?

 

[Yagharek]

You as the player are supposed to grow and care about these characters as the game progresses. The first third of the game might make you feel apprehensive towards them but by the end of the game without realising it you hopefully will have come to have a deep connection with them. At least finish the game before you come to a final opinion and even if you still don't like it then thats fine.

I find this interesting, purely because I cannot at all muster anything approaching emotional investment in any videogame story.

When people tell me they felt like they were emotionally drained after certain scenes, I find it impossible to relate to.

Videogame stories just dont do it for me.

 

[Bold One]

I think the difference in opinion on TLOU really does align with how much you accept the direction of AAA gaming becoming more and more like interactive movies.
TLOU is pretty much the poster boy of these high-budget, cinematic-focused games.

The production values, storytelling, voice acting were top-notch, yes. But it feels like TLOU is just paying lipservice to gameplay, mostly centered around tepid corridor setpieces where you go through the motions to get to the next plot sequence. Even many of those that heap praise on TLOU's story can only describe the gameplay euphemistically as "solid".

Now, should a game be given such high praise for telling a good story, at the expense mediocre gameplay? I'd say no, that undermines the interactivity that is fundamental the gaming medium. Still, even with lacking gameplay, TLOU is a good game. But to be so widely considered THE game of the generation just makes me feel like my time has passed.

Edit:
This poster sums it up quite well

utter twaddle, mate

don't remember a single QTE in the whole game

 

[Huggers]

I've seen people feel they can fully assess a game by watching someone else play it on Youtube a few times now. I can't wrap my head around it. Is it some satirical commentary on the nature of cinematic games?

Honestly, if you haven't played the game at all, you're better off not commenting. That's nothing to do with 'Sony Side' and everything to do with 'Gaming Side'.

Indeed, maybe someone could comment on the storytelling, and only that's a maybe, but the gameplay is all about improvisation, it's one of the games I think would transfer the worst from watching it.

Thank god. Couldn't believe what I was reading. Utter fucking nonsense. I've never played Super Mario Bros, brb, I'll watch it on Youtube

 

[Yagharek]

utter twaddle, mate

don't remember a single QTE in the whole game

What about when you get grabbed by an enemy and have to get them off you?

 

[MJLord]

I'd say play through all of it regardless. I felt a similar way about Spec Ops but it really came together in the end.

 

[Kinyou]

utter twaddle, mate

don't remember a single QTE in the whole game

There's a whole bunch of qtes in the game...

 

[StuBurns]

I just can't fathom how differently the game would appear if I had no control over medkit or molotov. No choice between stealth, sniping or shotgun. If the sense of exploring an environment was completely removed. Even little stuff like the optional incidental dialogue that the Youtube player may or may not trigger.

I like watching Quick Looks on Giant Bomb, but I can't imagine sitting and watching someone else play a whole game.

I don't think I have, but I think there are games which you could have a better grasp of by watching than others, such as God of War, I think that game is very transparent visually, and it communicates the impact of it's actions with those little slowdown moments, which probably reads pretty well when not playing. It's still a poor way to experience a game, and pointless as far as I can tell, but it would probably be kind of representative, TLoU wouldn't at all. I think stealth games specifically would be terrible for Lets Plays, the entire game design rests on the tension of being hidden, something which I doubt a video can communicate.

 

[Bold One]

What about when you get grabbed by an enemy and have to get them off you?

Its a struggle mechanic and and you have to push the buttons on your controller just like in any game.

 

[SmokyDave]

Ok I'll report back in a few years to add a measly "I feel the same way" after I get a PS3 at Goodwill for $20.

I love so many games, but I can admit after two decades of playing games it's easy to evaluate a game on video. It's heartbreaking I know, and I would never dare to do it with a game I plan on controlling myself. But many times I prefer watching a game from start to finish before I judge it based on platform or genre. Forgive me.

Dude, what you* do is your business, I'm just saying I can't fathom it. It's like describing the taste of a steak based on how it looked to watch someone else eat it.


*And I wasn't just referring to you, even though I replied directly to you.

 

[Always-honest]

Not sure. But with listen mode disabled it's pretty exciting for me. It clicked with me.

 

[Bold One]

There's a whole bunch of qtes in the game...

you mean when you have to pull a cord to power up a generator?

 

[Kinyou]

Its a struggle mechanic and and you have to push the buttons on your controller just like in any game.

I consider those QTEs. Not sure why you wouldn't. They're certainly characteristic of cinematic games like walking dead, heavy rain etc.

 

[Synth]

It would be looking like they are "overrating" it, i believe, if it werent for the acollades the product has earned and in this case, in the context of fierce competition, ie earning so many awards even though we had GTAV , Bioshock infinite, both amazing games as well.

That doesnt mean people dont exaggerate in forums or in general tho. They do that, in spades. But due to the general amount of praise the product has received, you could not say that it is completely overrated. It could be a bit, I understand that, i dont think TLOU deserves 200 GOTY awards, maybe it deserved 100, but you cant deny the fact IMHO, that by earning even the half of what it did, that the game did some things right. You may not like the game per se, by you have to recognize that it achieved something good.

I for example dont like Little Big Planet. I just dont get it, but I do recognize that for a lot of people it is a great and awesome game. I wont call it "overrated" because "I" didnt like it.

And btw thanks for the good manner in which you post and debate with me.

The awards and accolades come from people like us, with opinions like ours however, they're not objective metrics anymore than a poll on this forum is. The reviewers scoring the game, and designating the awards also generally write from a "the game is this good" rather than "in my opinion, the game is this good" standpoint, so it has the same issues with the claims that the fans do. All problems with exaggeration that happen on the micro level with one person's opinion, also happen at the macro level with awards and metacritic scores. A collection of subjective opinions is still subjective. And in many cases the reviewers are not actually better qualified to determine if one game is better than other, than the fanbase that plays it is (very common with fighting games).

Personally, I do believe games can be both overrated and underrated. Some people will dislike a game simply because they struggle to perform well at it. Others dislike a game simply because it's not on their preferred console. This post shows a large group of people that have set their view of a game in stone long before even playing it. Any one of these people could potentially be a reviewer and decide the game's score, and what awards it carries at the end of the year.

It ends up boiling back down to the person saying "In my opinion, this game is overrated", rather than "it's overrated"... which is a practice I really don't think needs to be enforced.

EDIT: I also just noticed that you say that GTAV and Bioshock Infinite are "amazing games", rather than "amazing games in my opinion". Can you see how inconvenient this can become?

I think this is nonsense. Playing games, they have a feel that can't be got from youtube. The satisfaction of doing certain things in games just feels right. Be it a baseball bat to a clickers head in TLoU or a combo in Street Fighter, or a jump in Mario. This makes up a huge part of what is enjoyable about a game. The way you put it we may as well just all go home and watch Youtube vids

I don't think we're quite on the same page with what I'm claiming. I'm not saying that the experience that you get from watching a game is enough to replace that of playing a game. I'm saying that by watching a large amount of gameplay you can often deduce what playing the game will be like, and if you're likely to enjoy it. I was looking forward to playing Titanfall based off the footage I saw that displayed the movement options, the Titan piloting, the integration of the AI units amongst the human players in battle etc. That didn't mean I didn't want to play it for myself.. but when I did play it, pretty much everything in the game felt just like I imagined it to, because there was plenty of information for me to build a working model of its system in my mind prior. There have been plenty of games that I thought looked like they wouldn't appeal to me in gameplay footage (such as Uncharted), and surprise surprise, once I actually did play it, these assumptions all turned out to be correct.

 

[Peru]

Not for me to tell people how to make threads but I see sooo many like this these days, where some popular title is presented as disappointing or something the poster 'didn't get', 'meh', etc. Is it really that hard to pinpoint why you don't like it? And if you can't, consider posting in a thread for that game instead since it's not all that easy to respond to someone who says 'hey this game you might like - I don't like it. discuss'. These threads would make a lot more sense if you worked out some arguments.

 

[JimiNutz]

I haven't played this yet and am really excited to play it on PS4 but am worried about some of the comments in here about the gameplay not being anything special.

For me, gameplay is everything.

I read books for stories, watch films for beautiful visuals and play games for their gameplay...

Hope I enjoy it.

 

[Bold One]

I consider those QTEs. Not sure why you wouldn't. They're certainly characteristic of cinematic games like walking dead, heavy rain etc.

not in the context of the original guy I was quoting, well, before you jumped in.

almost every game released in the past 3 years had moments where you will have to intereact with the environment,

look you have 2 options,

button prompt to hit light switch

or

cut scene of guy hitting light switch


my original response was showing that the term 'cinematic' needn't be dirty not rife with QTEs, there is a happy medium that keeps the audience engaged and in control even during moments where they may otherwise not have control.

 

[Bold One]

I haven't played this yet and am really excited to play it on PS4 but am worried about some of the comments in here about the gameplay not being anything special.

For me, gameplay is everything.

I read books for stories, watch films for beautiful visuals and play games for their gameplay...

Hope I enjoy it.

like I have said many many many times already, give it a go.

letting the opinions of others guide your mental state is how we got this thread in the first place.

 

[illustri0us]

Yeah no.

TLoU has fantastic gameplay as well as cinematics. Was RE4's gameplay mediocre? They are both TPS shooters that have depth despite looking simple. This notion that TLoU is loved just for its cinematics is completely false. Its a big reason no doubt, but look at every single review, look at the player reviews, look at the posts on GOTY thread, the gameplay is solid, tense and varied. It also is incredibly dynamic, due to the amount of options given to the player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i03gk2cVcKI

the ai was not great... how this game was seen as almost perfect i can not understand

 

[valkyre]

I consider those QTEs. Not sure why you wouldn't. They're certainly characteristic of cinematic games like walking dead, heavy rain etc.

And why is that a bad thing? or a cinematic for that matter? Because the camera angle changes? You still have to press something to evade the attack.

How would you imagine this in a "proper" way in your opinion, that does not qualify as a QTE? You still would have to press a button to get away from the attack, and it would be the exact same thing... the only thing that would be different is that you would have the same 3rd person camera you have while playing, which to me sounds lame and boring, since the whole "cinematic" thing in this specific case is very very well executed, by changing the camera angle and still have the player do exactly what he would be doing if it was just normal gameplay.

I really dont understand how you consider this particular thing bad or even QTE...

 

[Steiner_Zi]

I think the difference in opinion on TLOU really does align with how much you accept the direction of AAA gaming becoming more and more like interactive movies.
TLOU is pretty much the poster boy of these high-budget, cinematic-focused games.

The production values, storytelling, voice acting were top-notch, yes. But it feels like TLOU is just paying lipservice to gameplay, mostly centered around tepid corridor setpieces where you go through the motions to get to the next plot sequence. Even many of those that heap praise on TLOU's story can only describe the gameplay euphemistically as "solid".

And in no way can yoi judge a game by watching a YouTube video.

Now, should a game be given such high praise for telling a good story, at the expense mediocre gameplay? I'd say no, that undermines the interactivity that is fundamental the gaming medium. Still, even with lacking gameplay, TLOU is a good game. But to be so widely considered THE game of the generation just makes me feel like my time has passed.

Edit:
This poster sums it up quite well

What? People like you would say the same about the classic REs and SHs? TLoU had fantastic gameplay. In fact it was the AAA game after many years that gave much more control to the player and challenged him much more than the typical AAA shooter. No longer could you just start shooting and kill everyone, you had to think. Every battle was unique. Maybe you forget but TLoU is an action/survival game and given that the controls and the gamelay are structured ideally around creating a very intense experience that transfered the player for real into that world. And that's what I appreciate most about TLoU. It is the least safe AAA game I've played for years and somehow brought back the same magic of the classic PS1's action/adventure games.

 

[Erico]

Would it be possible to explain how the gameplay of TLOU is being hold back by its cinematic presence? I mean what is it that TLOU should have in terms of gameplay that it doesnt?

I honestly believe that the gameplay was very well done for what the game was supposed to be (a survival action game) as well as the technical limitations in the format it was developed for (ps3).

I really dont see what was missing from the game. It had proper shooting mechanics (rough deliberately) considering it is a survival game and not call of duty, it had crafting and upgrade systems, very intuitive melle combat, tense moments, good pace, collectibles (story related as well and not just irelevant stuff) good stealth system...

I mean i really dont feel they could have done more with what they had (ps3) and what they aimed for. And i certainly never thought that the game took control off my hands, in fact most of the time the player was in control.

I dont get how for example TLOU gameplay is criticized when most games even great ones dont offer that much more.

I am not saying it is perfect, by all means it could be even better, but always in mind that it is a ps3 game what more could it have?

Sure. TLOU being a survival action game with emphasis on stealth, I found the stealth gameplay mechanics consisted of the same enemies with basic AI following simple patrols, basically to set you up for easy stealth kills. The tenseness of the survival gameplay element was also pretty much defused once I realized Ellie is practically invisible and invincible to enemies. In terms of third-person shooter mechanics, I didnt feel like anything new was brought to the table. You got your typical third person gunplay and cover shooter elements. I did appreciate the item crafting though.

Now all of this combines for serviceable gameplay, but nothing spectacular. Which, again, is fine as I think TLOU is a good game. However, for a game to be widely considered the game of the generation, I think there has to be more innovative or robust gameplay.

utter twaddle, mate

don't remember a single QTE in the whole game

Dude, where in my entire post did I even mention the word QTE?

 

[illustri0us]

I find this interesting, purely because I cannot at all muster anything approaching emotional investment in any videogame story.

When people tell me they felt like they were emotionally drained after certain scenes, I find it impossible to relate to.

Videogame stories just dont do it for me.

im the same

the cutscene could be 10 out of 10 but as soon as you enter the character, the ai and character limitations just kill it

we are a long way off from true movie to game experiences

 

[Fjordson]

There's nothing really to get. You don't have to like it.

I'm actually in agreement with you, though. I thought the game was boring. For some reason I found the small town section with Bill to be pretty neat, but it quickly got stale after that and was a drag to the end. And the story wasn't nearly interesting enough to make up for said staleness in the gameplay.

 

[TedNindo]

I didn't like the gameplay on normal and just tried to push myself through it and I would make progress that way but didn't enjoy it.

On hard I was forced to stop and think and I ended up enjoying the gameplay a lot more. It became more of a challenge and less tedious.

 

[Kinyou]

And why is that a bad thing? or a cinematic for that matter? Because the camera angle changes? You still have to press something to evade the attack.

How would you imagine this in a "proper" way in your opinion, that does not qualify as a QTE? You still would have to press a button to get away from the attack, and it would be the exact same thing... the only thing that would be different is that you would have the same 3rd person camera you have while playing, which to me sounds lame and boring, since the whole "cinematic" thing in this specific case is very very well executed, by changing the camera angle and still have the player do exactly what he would be doing if it was just normal gameplay.

I really dont understand how you consider this particular thing bad or even QTE...

I didn't say that it's bad. I just said that it's a QTE

 

[valkyre]

Sure. TLOU being a survival action game with emphasis on stealth, I found the stealth gameplay mechanics consisted of the same enemies with basic AI following simple patrols, basically to set you up for easy stealth kills. The tenseness of the survival gameplay element was also pretty much defused once I realized Ellie is practically invisible and invincible to enemies. In terms of third-person shooter mechanics, I didnt feel like anything new was brought to the table. You got your typical third person gunplay and cover shooter elements. I did appreciate the item crafting though.

Now all of this combines for serviceable gameplay, but nothing spectacular. Which, again, is fine as I think TLOU is a good game. However, for a game to be widely considered the game of the generation, I think there has to be more innovative or robust gameplay.


Dude, where in my entire post did I even mention the word QTE?

Ellie is not invincible. Ellie can and will die if you do a sloppy job. In higher difficulties (which is how the game was designed) you get a lot of situations where you need to save Ellie.

The invisible thing is a valid point, although i blieve it was technical limitations that prevented a better job at it. Technical limitations is also the reason that the patrol routes for enemies is pre determined and in a certain area (the documentary speaks about this). But that doesnt make them predictable. I dont know if you played the game on survivor mode, but the AI does some wonderful things and many times I found myself in situations were unexpected things happened.

Nothing "new" was dropped to the table (although i consider the melee combat groundbreakingly good by reacting to the environment), indeed but did it have to? LOU combined a lot of neat stuff and created a rich experience both in gameplay and story department imho. Its not every day you get a 3rd person action/survival game with all the gameplay elements of TLOU. In fact most 3rd person shooters just ask the player to shoot.jump, cover and beat a guy. No stealth is involved, no crafting system, no limited supplies etc.

I dont think they could have done much more. Especially considering as I said, the fact that the PS3 poses a lot of technical limitations.

I didn't say that it's bad. I just said that it's a QTE

Ok scratch the bad thing, why is it a QTE? Because of the camera angle? The player will do the exact same thing even if the camera angle was not there...

EDIT: I also just noticed that you say that GTAV and Bioshock Infinite are "amazing games", rather than "amazing games in my opinion". Can you see how inconvenient this can become?

If you notice though, my general point in my post is that, when a game has received a certain amount of considerable praise, both from the media and the public, then even if you dont like it, which is perfectly fine, you just cant ignore the fact that for the majority it is a great game and because it has received accolades, therefore it cant be all that overrated and such.

Hence my example with LBP where I said that, even though i dont like the game at all, i cannot call it overrated, just because it doesnt appeal to me. Obviously the game is good. But not for me.

In any case, as I already said, in a previous post to another member, I may have gone a bit overboard expecting people to post more formally than they had to. Perhaps its because of the whole "i'm in GAF!!" thing lolz

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

And why is that a bad thing? or a cinematic for that matter? Because the camera angle changes? You still have to press something to evade the attack.

How would you imagine this in a "proper" way in your opinion, that does not qualify as a QTE? You still would have to press a button to get away from the attack, and it would be the exact same thing... the only thing that would be different is that you would have the same 3rd person camera you have while playing, which to me sounds lame and boring, since the whole "cinematic" thing in this specific case is very very well executed, by changing the camera angle and still have the player do exactly what he would be doing if it was just normal gameplay.

I really dont understand how you consider this particular thing bad or even QTE...

Exactly. Pressing a button to escape is now a QTE? Like waht.

Quick time EVENTS are usually said when your character does a move that is not in your moveset during gameplay.

I don't see the RE4 kick as a QTE either.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

I don't like Metal Gear Solid and Super Mario Galaxy 1&2.
I think The Last Of Us is the best game of all time.

 

[Ramrock]

It is the greatest game ever for me. I love everything about it.
You don't like it? Welp, you have a different taste, as it seems.
You don't have to like everything.

 

[Synth]

Exactly. Pressing a button to escape is now a QTE? Like waht.

Quick time EVENTS are usually said when your character does a move that is not in your moveset during gameplay.

I don't see the RE4 kick as a QTE either.

I do... because it's not in your moveset at all other times.

 

[Impeccable]

I don't "get" a lot of games - they just aren't for me.

 

[QuiteUndead]

How dare you not like a game that I like!

lol
People like different things dude.No big deal.

 

[SmokyDave]

Not for me to tell people how to make threads but I see sooo many like this these days, where some popular title is presented as disappointing or something the poster 'didn't get', 'meh', etc. Is it really that hard to pinpoint why you don't like it? And if you can't, consider posting in a thread for that game instead since it's not all that easy to respond to someone who says 'hey this game you might like - I don't like it. discuss'. These threads would make a lot more sense if you worked out some arguments.

Although I've never made a thread about it, I totally understand the sentiment behind 'I don't like this popular, well received game but I don't really know why'. I have a couple of games that are well regarded by all that I just can't 'click' with, yet I'd never be able to properly describe why. It can be quite frustrating.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

It's a very solid TPS, with an engaging story, gorgeous visuals and the best acting you'll see rendered in pixels.

The music is incredible too.

But taken from a purely gameplay standpoint, yes, it's nothing "incredible". It's simply a well bolted together game that happens to be presented beautifully.

It's more than the sum of it's parts basically.

 

[Erico]

Ellie is not invinsible. Ellie can and will die if you do a sloppy job. In higher difficulties (which is how the game was designed) you get a lot of situations where you need to save Ellie.

The invincible thing is a valid point, although i blieve it was technical limitations that prevented a better job at it. Technical limitations is also the reason that the patrol routes for enemies is pre determined and in a certain area. But that doesnt make them predictable. I dont know if you played the game on survivor mode, but the AI does some wonderful things and many times I found myself in situations were unexpected things happened.

Nothing "new" was dropped to the table (although i consider the melee combat groundbreakingly good by reacting to the environment), indeed but did it have to? LOU combined a lot of neat stuff and created a rich experience both in gameplay and story department imho. Its not every day you get a 3rd person action/survival game with all the gameplay elements of TLOU. In fact most 3rd person shooters just ask the player to shoot.jump, cover and beat a guy. No stealth is involved, no crafting system, no limited supplies etc.

I dont think they could have done much more. Especially considering as I said, the fact that the PS3 poses a lot of technical limitations.

I think we basically see eye-to-eye on the gameplay. Yes, the gameplay is limited in many aspects by the technical constraints, but it's serviceable in the end.

I suppose where we differ is how much emphasis we place on the gameplay in rating the overall package of the game.

Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but I believe that for you and others, TLOU is a great game despite gameplay limitations. These limitations are covered by the impressive production values, story, etc. Sort of a sum-is-greater-than-the-parts thing.

For me, I feel that these same gameplay limitations are what's holding it back from being great.

Might just be apples and oranges at this point, but I do appreciate your earnest dialogue, rather than the dismissive defensive reactions exhibited by some other posters here.

 

[valkyre]

I think we basically see eye-to-eye on the gameplay. Yes, the gameplay is limited in many aspects by the technical constraints.

I suppose where we differ is how much emphasis we place on the gameplay in rating the overall package of the game.

Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but I believe that for you and others, TLOU is a great game despite gameplay limitations. These limitations are covered by the impressive production values, story, etc. Sort of a sum-is-greater-than-the-parts thing.

For me, I feel that these same gameplay limitations are what's holding it back from being great.

Might just be apples and oranges at this point, but I do appreciate your earnest attempt dialogue, rather than the dismissive defensive reactions exhibited by some other posters here.

And I thank you for presenting your opinion and arguments politely.

I will say though that I thoroughly enjoyed TLOU gameplay. I was actually thrilled by it. Maybe it is because i was fed up with games of the genre having become complete shooters, like resident evil and that seemed one dimentional to me. TLOU provided much more variety in gameplay than games of its genre.

And yes technical limitations prevented it from becoming something more. But in the context of PS3 I cannot feel dissappointed by the work that ND did. Really they couldnt do much more.

With the new gen though, they can and the most limiting thing of TLOU is that it is not open world. This opens up indeed a huge amount of possibilities, but they couldnt have done it in PS3 (and its understandable), and I hope they will do it for PS4

In fact I do believe that even uncharted 4 is going to be semi open world ala Arkham City!

 

[The Spoony Hou]

I don't get why the OP feel he needs to "get" the game, unless he regrets spending the money to buy it.

Dude, you've heard this already, but stop trying to find the greatness in the game. I'm sure you have also seem lots of opinions on the game, so I don't think anyone can explain the game better for you. Play it if you can, don't play if it's too much of a chore.