The Last of Us wins 10 DICE awards, including Game of the Year - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;43837077]Well, if 'The Last of Us' was average then the gaming industry would be at a much higher standard than it is now. At any rate, here's what the game does well: - Realistic characterization and storytelling on par with a good film, and also successfully ties into the gameplay. It's also a long narrative, clocking in at a good 14-20 hours depending on the difficulty and how much exploring you do. - Well polished, weighty, and strategic combat that rewards creativity, stealth, and variety. The resulting savagery also ties straight into the plot and fits with what we know of our characters and the world they live in. - A technical achievement for the PS3's hardware, beating even Naughty Dog's previous Uncharted 3. - Strong sound design with equally good voice acting and a haunting soundtrack. - The story and the gameplay treat you intelligently, avoiding the handholding that many other AAA games deal with. - The AI is actually intelligent and challenging, which is a rarity. I know that was all a little gushing, but the game is simply superb in my opinion, and sadly it's only significant fault is that it was made on last-generation hardware. Well, that and the pallet puzzles went on a couple too many times.[/QUOTE] Did we play the same game? The AI acted like any other game and if it were smart and they would have had Ellie actually in the game rather then just have everyone ignore her. What do you mean there was no hand holding? The game is linear and highlights everything unless you turn it off. The only thing that was above average was sound design and graphics. The Story was alright, I didn't really have to think on it since everything is presented to you in super obvious ways. [QUOTE=Juniez;43837130]yeah maybe if you hate good games[/QUOTE] It's actually really average and kind of boring at parts. Everyone hyped it up to be the "Citizen Kane of gaming" or an absolutely amazing game when really it's just a cover shooter with sluggish controls and stealth elements along with a lot of scripted events. People point to the graphics being amazing but that doesn't make a good game, if it did the Crysis would be more then a tech demo. Other people point to the amazing cutscenes and story which if you're only in it for that then games are not for you because those should be secondary to gameplay and the gameplay is boring.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43839556]Did we play the same game? The AI acted like any other game and if it were smart and they would have had Ellie actually in the game rather then just have everyone ignore her. [/QUOTE] yeah and that would punish the player for things that aren't their fault there's a balance between challenging and frustrating [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43839556]What do you mean there was no hand holding? The game is linear and highlights everything unless you turn it off.[/QUOTE] linear =/= hand holding [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43839556]The Story was alright, I didn't really have to think on it since everything is presented to you in super obvious ways.[/QUOTE] there's more to storytelling than having the biggest twist of all time u know [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43839556] Everyone hyped it up to be the "Citizen Kane of gaming" or an absolutely amazing game when really it's just a cover shooter with sluggish controls and stealth elements along with a lot of scripted events.[/QUOTE] there's nothing wrong with scripts and scripted events open the game to otherwise impossible narrative deliveries [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43839556]People point to the graphics being amazing but that doesn't make a good game, if it did the Crysis would be more then a tech demo. Other people point to the amazing cutscenes and story which if you're only in it for that then games are not for you because those should be secondary to gameplay and the gameplay is boring.[/QUOTE] oh of course you're the kind of guy who treats gaming as an exclusive club founded on inappropriate assumptions and arbitrary measures

i found the game lots of fun and it was certainly a highlight of the year for me but the last of us pulled so many post-apocalyptic movie clichés out of its ass i'm pretty sure naughty dog just hooked their writers to tvtropes for two years in a dark room and this was the result

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43839556]Did we play the same game? The AI acted like any other game and if it were smart and they would have had Ellie actually in the game rather then just have everyone ignore her. What do you mean there was no hand holding? The game is linear and highlights everything unless you turn it off. The only thing that was above average was sound design and graphics. The Story was alright, I didn't really have to think on it since everything is presented to you in super obvious ways. It's actually really average and kind of boring at parts. Everyone hyped it up to be the "Citizen Kane of gaming" or an absolutely amazing game when really it's just a cover shooter with sluggish controls and stealth elements along with a lot of scripted events. People point to the graphics being amazing but that doesn't make a good game, if it did the Crysis would be more then a tech demo. Other people point to the amazing cutscenes and story which if you're only in it for that then games are not for you because those should be secondary to gameplay and the gameplay is boring.[/QUOTE] The enemies ignoring Ellie and other friendlies were intentional. [url]http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/06/07/naughty-dog-cant-wait-to-see-the-goty-awards-for-the-last-of-us-they-tried-a-new-jak-daxter-prior-to-tlou/[/url] [quote][B]Was it intentional to have AI companions in plain sight, but you still not being spotted?[/B] That was absolutely intentional, and it was a very hard decision to make. As Sessler and a few other reviews pointed out, the alternative would be extremely infuriating. We are trying to make a game where stealth is an important aspect, and we knew we wouldn’t be able to guarantee the buddy AI would be able to stay hidden as well as the player. If the buddies were seen by enemies, it would be extremely frustrating.[/quote] [quote][B]Why did you decide to make enemies ignore Ellie? [/B] Ellie can still die, just if the player is trying to be stealthy they won’t see her. As I said elsewhere, we made this choice because it would be frustrating if a player had stealth broken by Ellie being seen.[/quote] The only people to call it the "Citizen Kane of gaming" was a leaked review, so saying that "everyone" hyped it up is just incorrect. also [quote] It's actually really average and kind of boring at parts.[/quote] your standards are too high. It was a very enjoyable experience and was worth every penny of the $60 it cost, which says a lot considering the current state of the gaming industry and how we keep getting screwed over anytime a new AAA title comes out. [QUOTE=Dronaroid;43839718]i found the game lots of fun and it was certainly a highlight of the year for me but the last of us pulled so many post-apocalyptic movie clichés out of its ass i'm pretty sure naughty dog just hooked their writers to tvtropes for two years in a dark room and this was the result[/QUOTE]Pretty sure that was intentional, they weren't trying to create an incredibly original and unique story, the reviewers are the ones who touted it as unique. It's cliche, yeah, but it's handled very well in that regard and actually ends up making it enjoyable and gripping.

[QUOTE=Juniez;43839666]there's a balance between challenging and frustrating linear =/= hand holding there's more to storytelling than having the biggest twist of all time u know there's nothing wrong with scripts and scripted events open the game to otherwise impossible narrative deliveries oh of course it's this kind of guy I don't think this game is for you, dude... sorry for liking something you don't. my condolences[/QUOTE] I enjoyed The Last of Us I just don't see why it's getting so much praise. There was literally nothing special about it other then having competent writing and sound design. If the game had good AI then [i] Ellie would react to enemy movement and would decide when the right time to move was. Enemies would also react to her if they saw her.[/i] Alternatively you should have been allowed to give her orders to move around like in Republic Commando or Resident Evil 4. I'm not against games having story or cutscenes it's just that they should never be the main goal. If you want to only watch those then create a movie or write a book. Games can be amazingly interactive worlds and The Last of Us isn't one of them. Especially when the plot is predictable. A good story would raise questions and have you actually thinking, both of which I rarely did when playing the game. [QUOTE=Killer900;43839753]The enemies ignoring Ellie and other friendlies were intentional. [url]http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/06/07/naughty-dog-cant-wait-to-see-the-goty-awards-for-the-last-of-us-they-tried-a-new-jak-daxter-prior-to-tlou/[/url] The only people to call it the "Citizen Kane of gaming" were in a leaked review, so saying that "everyone" hyped it up is just incorrect. also your standards are too high and you don't know what you're talking about. It was a very enjoyable experience and was worth every penny of the $60 it cost, which says a lot considering the current state of the gaming industry and how we keep getting screwed over anytime a new AAA title comes out.[/QUOTE] Just because something is intentional does not mean it's good, it means it's lazy. Did you completely miss when everyone was giving The Last of Us 10/10's for everything? The industry is actually flourishing with great games that are both creative and unique. You only have to stop paying attention to the AAA games to see that. In fact there are still a ton of great AAA games out there just look at anything Team ICO makes or most things that are created by From Software. Hell look at was Atlus pushes out, they're all good too.

[QUOTE=Killer900;43839753]Pretty sure that was intentional, they weren't trying to create an incredibly original and unique story, the reviewers are the ones who touted it as unique. It's cliche, yeah, but it's handled very well in that regard and actually ends up making it enjoyable and gripping.[/QUOTE] ok good thing we got that out of the way even with the great presentation it doesn't mean that the writing is fantastic though

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43839784]I enjoyed The Last of Us I just don't see why it's getting so much praise. There was literally nothing special about it other then having competent writing and sound design. If the game had good AI then [I] Ellie would react to enemy movement and would decide when the right time to move was. Enemies would also react to her if they saw her.[/I] Alternatively you should have been allowed to give her orders to move around like in Republic Commando or Resident Evil 4. I'm not against games having story or cutscenes it's just that they should never be the main goal. If you want to only watch those then create a movie or write a book. [B]Games can be amazingly interactive worlds and The Last of Us isn't one of them.[/B] Especially when the plot is predictable. A good story would raise questions and have you actually thinking, both of which I rarely did when playing the game. [B] Just because something is intentional does not mean it's good, it means it's lazy.[/B] Did you completely miss when everyone was giving The Last of Us 10/10's for everything? The industry is actually flourishing with great games that are both creative and unique. You only have to stop paying attention to the AAA games to see that.[/QUOTE]The friendly AI can only be seen while in a combat state, they tried to let the friendly AI be detectable while in stealth but it ended up being very frustrating for the playtesters so they ended up just making them undetectable which was a better decision in the end. Also lazy? Really? Coding AI is incredibly difficult and calling them lazy is ignorant and childish and makes you come off as a tart who doesn't know what they're talking about. The game was given 10's across the board because it's a very well made game, what did you expect? 7s and 8s? And yeah I'm aware that the industry has a lot of good indie games, but that doesn't mean we should ignore AAA games just because they're AAA games, else you miss out on a game like this. And there is a lot of interactivity in the world, little tibits to find scattered throughout each level like a journal logs, notes, recorders, and dogtags. You can also interact with the characters every now and then through dialouge options, did you just rush through the entire game and miss every single one of those things?

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43839784]I enjoyed The Last of Us I just don't see why it's getting so much praise. There was literally nothing special about it other then having competent writing and sound design. I'm not against games having story or cutscenes it's just that they should never be the main goal. If you want to only watch those then create a movie or write a book. Games can be amazingly interactive worlds and The Last of Us isn't one of them. Especially when the plot is predictable. A good story would raise questions and have you actually thinking, both of which I rarely did when playing the game.[/QUOTE] I'm not against whatever you enjoy in games but nobody should decide what games 'should' be. If you want to go back to an era where games narratives were equated to porn storylines then well... go ahead - there's still plenty of [del]90s[/del] 80s games and retro reboots for you to appreciate. Games, through their interactive nature, can deliver a narrative experience that's impossible with other mediums - and that's what The Last of Us does. Especially when the characters are so well written and believable (again, accented by their interactive nature) A good story is a combination of a myriad of factors of factors (plot and storyline being a very minor part. seriously wtf we stopped analyzing plot in elementary school), The Last of us does many of them (characters, its presentation of humanity's bare nature brought on by the apocalyptic scenario) very very well. [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43839784]Just because something is intentional does not mean it's good, it means it's lazy. [/QUOTE] dumbing down the AI is very intentional and not lazy - the developers very well know (and you do too) that you can't outsmart 5-6 decently intelligent people at a time

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;43837903]The game was flippin' gorgeous, man. [t]http://goodkindofgeek.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/maxresdefault-1.jpg[/t] [img]http://www.gameranx.com/img/13-Apr/the-last-of-us-naughty-dog-wasteland-beautiful.png[/img] I actually just started playing through it again a few days ago, and I'm still impressed by how beautiful the art direction is, and how much power they actually managed to squeeze out of that system.[/QUOTE] It's weird even playing U3 to see how well they've improved technically. The Last of Us is absolutely gorgeous.

[QUOTE=Killer900;43839895]The friendly AI can only be seen while in a combat state, they tried to let the friendly AI be detectable while in stealth but it ended up being very frustrating for the playtesters so they ended up just making them undetectable which was a better decision in the end. Also lazy? Really? Coding AI is incredibly difficult and calling them lazy is ignorant and childish and makes you come off as a tart who doesn't know what they're talking about. The game was given 10's across the board because it's a very well made game, what did you expect? 7s and 8s? And yeah I'm aware that the industry has a lot of good indie games, but that doesn't mean we should ignore AAA games just because they're AAA games, else you miss out on a game like this.[/QUOTE] If it was annoying having her getting spotted then have it so she waits on your commands while in stealth and have it so that her being spotted relies on how well the player is able to command her movement. [QUOTE=Juniez;43839903]I'm not against whatever you enjoy in games but nobody should decide what games 'should' be. If you want to go back to an era where games narratives were equated to porn storylines then well... go ahead - there's still plenty of [del]90s[/del] 80s games and retro reboots for you to appreciate. Games, through their interactive nature, can deliver a narrative experience that's impossible with other mediums - and that's what The Last of Us does. Especially when the characters are so well written and believable (again, accented by their interactive nature) A good story is a combination of a myriad of factors of factors (plot and storyline being a very minor part. seriously wtf we stopped analyzing plot in elementary school), The Last of us does many of them (characters, its presentation of humanity's bare nature brought on by the apocalyptic scenario) very very well.[/QUOTE] [b] Games, through their interactive nature, can deliver a narrative experience that's impossible with other mediums - and that's what The Last of Us does.[/b] Actually in that regard you're completely wrong and The Last of Us does that pretty poorly. It plays more like an interactive movie then a game. [b] The Last of us does many of them (characters, its presentation of humanity's bare nature brought on by the apocalyptic scenario) very very well.[/b] This is nothing new and has been done by many other games, movies, comics and books. They've all done it better. Actually yeah it's very easy to decide what a game should be. It's kind of why there called Games in the first place and The Last of Us barely fits the bill which is probably why it's getting so many awards because of how mainstream games have gotten.

The Last of Us is by no means a bad game, but there are certainly parts that could've been improved. And just because it's good it doesn't mean it's also innovative.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43839989] [B]Actually in that regard you're completely wrong and The Last of Us does that pretty poorly. It plays more like an interactive movie then a game.[/B] [/QUOTE] I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not. The Last of us is hugely gameplay focused with different systems out the ass??? Maybe if we were talking about, say, Beyond Two Souls.

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;43840004]The Last of Us is by no means a bad game, but there are certainly parts that could've been improved. And just because it's good it doesn't mean it's also innovative.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it's bad I'm just saying it's not as great as everyone claims it be. [QUOTE=Zeos;43840013]I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not. The Last of us is hugely gameplay focused with different systems out the ass??? Maybe if we were talking about, say, Beyond Two Souls.[/QUOTE] Gameplay feels like an after thought though. It feels like they couldn't figure out how to blend it with the story so they just made it a cover shooter.

[QUOTE=Zeos;43839960]It's weird even playing U3 to see how well they've improved technically. The Last of Us is absolutely gorgeous.[/QUOTE] It's definitely very impressive considering the hardware, and the art direction is very well done.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43839989]Actually yeah it's very easy to decide what a game should be. It's kind of why there called Games in the first place and The Last of Us barely fits the bill which is probably why it's getting so many awards because of how mainstream games have gotten.[/QUOTE] god damn. i don't understand how people can distill games down to their bare 'yes the gameplay is the only important thing'. like, I've never heard a movie critic yell out "yeah well if you want a good story just read a book!! movies should be all about the cinematography". cause that's a fucking ignorant way of looking at a diverse medium

[QUOTE=Zeos;43840013]I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not. The Last of us is hugely gameplay focused with different systems out the ass??? Maybe if we were talking about, say, Beyond Two Souls.[/QUOTE] After playing through the Uncharted games recently, I've noticed that Naughty Dog is great at developing games with very organic gameplay.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43840015]I'm not saying it's bad I'm just saying it's not as great as everyone claims it be.[/QUOTE] Oh, I agree with you, but only to a point. It's not as good as reviewers and some people say, but it's certainly not broken. I didn't even like some of its gameplay, and the story was pretty damn predictable. Naughty Dog are good devs. And my comment wasn't even against you, and could be taken as negative.

[QUOTE=Juniez;43840030]god damn. i don't understand how people can distill games down to their bare 'yes the gameplay is the only important thing'. like, I've never heard a movie critic yell out "yeah well if you want a good story just read a book!! movies should be all about the cinematography". cause that's a fucking stupid way of looking at a diverse medium[/QUOTE] What you just said makes absolutely no sense. Games are incredibly different from Movies and Novels. Gameplay is the most important part to a game. The perfect game would be something with amazing gameplay and a great story so far only a few games have done this. Games are about entertainment while Books and Movies are about telling stories.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43840015]I'm not saying it's bad I'm just saying it's not as great as everyone claims it be.[/QUOTE]You're too jaded. [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43839989]If it was annoying having her getting spotted then have it so she waits on your commands while in stealth and have it so that her being spotted relies on how well the player is able to command her movement.[/QUOTE]Maybe they already tried that in playtesting but found it didn't make the game anymore enjoyable? Naughty Dog knows what they're doing, they've been in this industry for over 20 years, they have a very talented and experienced team under their belt, so I'm sure they've thought of every possibility they could in regards to the friendly AI and decided that the current system was the best system; and it is. [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43840055]What you just said makes absolutely no sense. Games are incredibly different from Movies and Novels. Gameplay is the most important part to a game. [B]The perfect game would be something with amazing gameplay and a great story so far only a few games have done this[/B]. Games are about entertainment while Books and Movies are about telling stories.[/QUOTE]So which games fit this definition according to you.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43840055]What you just said makes absolutely no sense. Games are incredibly different from Movies and Novels. Gameplay is the most important part to a game. The perfect game would be something with amazing gameplay and a great story so far only a few games have done this. Games are about entertainment while Books and Movies are about telling stories.[/QUOTE] All are entertainment, but provide them in different ways. Books in their ability to deliver narrative in its purest form, with words. Movies in their cinematography and visual design along with acting and writing. Games are like movies in a certain sense, but that interactivity makes it totally different. Games are still relatively young, and trying to find where and what they are. Just look at how different movies today are from the movies of the early twentieth century.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43840055]What you just said makes absolutely no sense. Games are incredibly different from Movies and Novels. Gameplay is the most important part to a game. The perfect game would be something with amazing gameplay and a great story so far only a few games have done this. Games are about entertainment while Books and Movies are about telling stories.[/QUOTE] What you just said makes absolutely no sense. Movies are incredibly different from Novels. Cinematography is the most important part to a movie. The perfect movie would be something with amazing cinematography and a great story so far only a few movies have done this. Movies are about entertainment while Books are about telling stories. does it sound like i'm brushing away a major part of movies as a medium and replacing it with an arbitrary criteria because i don't really understand what movies can offer? does it ????

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;43840085]All are entertainment, but provide them in different ways. Books in their ability to deliver narrative in its purest form, with words. Movies in their cinematography and visual design. Games are like movies in a certain sense, but that interactivity makes it totally different. Games are still relatively young, and trying to find where and what they are. Just look at how different movies today are from the movies of the early twentieth century.[/QUOTE] Game can only be compared to movies when it's with cutscenes. Everyone says that games are young and their evolving but we've already achieved and have gotten so close to how games should portray their story which is completely through gameplay. Games like ICO and Amnesia do this and that is the way games should go.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43840127]Game can only be compared to movies when it's with cutscenes. Everyone says that games are young and their evolving but we've already achieved and have gotten so close to how games should portray their story which is completely through gameplay. Games like ICO and Amnesia do this and that is the way games should go.[/QUOTE] I think games can achieve good storytelling through gameplay, and for example, Half Life 2 does this without cutscenes, which feel artificial and only take away player interactivity. But obviously there's a market for cinematic games, and while I dislike them myself, developers have the freedom to make what they want.

I don't see why games have to tell stories one way or another. To me, part of the beauty of (good) video game storytelling is that developers can do it however they want, whether it be through gameplay, cutscenes, a combination of the two, text screens, audio logs, or whatever.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43840127]Game can only be compared to movies when it's with cutscenes. Everyone says that games are young and their evolving but we've already achieved and have gotten so close to how games should portray their story which is completely through gameplay. Games like ICO and Amnesia do this and that is the way games should go.[/QUOTE]Amnesia. The game where you have literally no way do defend yourself and the only course of action when being confronted with an enemy is to hide every single time? Is that one of your examples of good gameplay?

[QUOTE=Killer900;43840224]Amnesia. The game where you have literally no way do defend yourself and the only course of action when being confronted with an enemy is to hide every single time? Is that one of your examples of good gameplay?[/QUOTE] Not really in terms of gameplay but more so how the story is told through gameplay. Half Life would have a been a better example.

I believe it deserved everything it recieved, pains me knowing I wont get to experience it like I did with my first play through.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43840255]Not really in terms of gameplay but more so how the story is told through gameplay. Half Life would have a been a better example.[/QUOTE]Telling the story through gameplay ala Half-Life doesn't work for every game, which is why we have cutscenes in the first place, not to mention the fact that there are some things that you just can't do through gameplay that you can through a cutscene.

[QUOTE=Killer900;43840314]Telling the story through gameplay ala Half-Life doesn't work for every game, which is why we have cutscenes in the first place, not to mention the fact that there are some things that you just can't do through gameplay that you can through a cutscene.[/QUOTE]exactly right. Between the subtle facial expressions, body language, and certain set piece moments, the story could not have been told as strongly if it were done entirely through gameplay.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43840055]What you just said makes absolutely no sense. Games are incredibly different from Movies and Novels. Gameplay is the most important part to a game. The perfect game would be something with amazing gameplay and a great story so far only a few games have done this. Games are about entertainment while Books and Movies are about telling stories.[/QUOTE] I disagree that games are just about entertainment vs. books and movies just being about telling stories. Games can be many things (as can movies and novels), including telling stories, and saying they're just about "entertainment" kind of devalues the scope of what's possible. But that said, I agree that ideally the gameplay should be something that serves the story/theme in a way that you couldn't do with a film or a book. The interactive element is what makes games unique, so if the narrative could work just as well if you take all the gameplay out, and the gameplay is just there to "make it a game", then what's the point of making it a game in the first place? You might as well just make it a film if the gameplay is detached from the rest of it. The more you use the gameplay to tell a story or convey a theme by itself the better, IMO. I haven't played the Last of Us (and perhaps never will unless it somehow comes to PC), so IDK if it actually does this or not, but if it doesn't then even though it's presumably an excellently made experience, it's quite not utilizing the medium to its full potential IMO.