Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Last of Us [SPOILERS]
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
Sorry for the lack of direct capture, and for the fact that the audio is ridiculously low (I just shot this now and I couldn't turn it up cause I'd wake the people in the house here) but this is one of my favourite moments from my playthrough, I literally LOL'd when she said that comment at the end!!
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,734 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 28443
Finished it last night. I thought it ended on the perfect note - a worthwhile, intriguing character beat. Unlike most storytellers, they're aware of the power of a cut to black, the simple emotional capabilities of a close-up. It achieved a satisfying mix between uncertainty and conclusiveness, ending on a quiet moment rather than some hyperactive one - most important, one that is endearingly self-contained. I had several issues with the game, but the ending wasn't one. I don't think it leaves a hell of a lot of room for interpretation, but I don't consider that a particularly bad thing given its emotional effectiveness. Also ****ing delighted they didn't go down the 'Joel dies' route - a cliche I was fearing throughout. What we got was smarter, darker than that.
That said, I also wouldn't have begrudged it cutting to black at the giraffe bit
. That was really beautiful - the kind of emotional spectacle most filmmakers have forgotten about, let alone game makers. I also loved the way the game allowed you to stand there for an extended period, allowing you to move only when you felt it was necessary. A simple way of deepening your connection with the game.
Now, I did have issues with the game overall. Although it was a significant improvement over Uncharted, I still felt somewhat of a disconnect between story and game at times. Particularly Joel's injury - while I appreciated ND shifting focus to Elly in his stead, I do think there was gameplay potential there unrealised - basically two short play sequences (one barely interactive) where he was weak before he was back and fully athletic despite the cutscenes showing him on the brink of death.
Also wish they hadn't fallen back on combat scenes so much, it did grow increasingly tiresome. Again, they do a damn good job convincing us of the characters' violent sides than Uncharted ever did. But the point was well made early on, and they fell back on 'roomful of grunts' far too often (happy with how sparingly they used infected, though). I can buy a large body count without necessitating a full on genocide. Most of the game's 'puzzles ' (a strong word) and tricks are introduced early on and simply remixed later - some more gameplay surprises would have been welcome.
Back to the good: the world building was remarkable. The detail in the environments sold them. Such a believable place to explore, with the possible exception of a few too many lanes blocked by buses All the locations felt like real, once functional ones, loaded with history and stories. Amazing to just explore. I do wish there were fewer meaningless collectibles scattered around, but for the most part the way the memos and letters were scattered around felt more natural than most games manage (coughbioshockcough), even if they conveniently survived the elemental assault when other items didn't! I can forgive that one leap o' logic.
Also, and finally, the character development. Naughty Dog are peerless in that regard - the interactions fully believable, each one strongly defined. From the banter to the grander dramatic beats, it rarely rings hollow. Also kudos for a game that doesn't fall back on stereotypes (particularly gender-based ones). It's all aided by strong storytelling ability - the way some events occur off-screen, the lack of raw, lazy sentimentality, the fact the developers know when to cut to black and when to linger for a moment longer (although the gaps between seasons sometimes felt like hours as opposed to months!). I wouldn't say it's a subtle game in terms of story and character, but it is a deeply considered one.
So definitely some minor problems, ones Id love to see refined in future Naughty Dog games. But mostly a success. What ND do is they take the basically linear action game (some semi-open exploration notwithstanding) and shame the vast majority of other developers with the delivery. It's a welcome departure from the mere rollercoaster of Uncharted, a work of more depth and value. I still don't think they've quite nailed the relationship between gameplay and narrative, but this is a significant leap in the right direction.
PS for the love of god no sequel. The story is done. There are completely new avenues to explore. Trust this to stand alone.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I liked the character of Joel and I think this might be the first time when I played this type of game that I didn't start yelling at the game, "your being an idiot, nobody would do that!". He took the pragmatic approach of survival above all else, which I always like to see.
I think that his choice at the end however was the completely selfish one. Given what had happened to Sarah I knew their was no way he would let Ellie die. Especially after she stole the photo and gave it to him.
Really liked the final scene, the way you see it from Ellie's perspective and Joel is being too sweet saying how Sarah really would have liked her. Set it up really well for the final question and they did a great job hinting that she didn't believe the lie, but was ok with it.
Can't actually believe they put in the falling part inside the bus towards the end. Did we really need the reminder that this was the uncharted engine
0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 51040
WARNING! There's some major Spec Ops and MGS3 spoilers ahead.Been thinking about this a lot today and just want to get it off my chest. The more I think about the surgery scene the more I think it was kind of terrible.
My two main problems is that it was a rip off of a similar scene from Spec Ops but the execution in this case was dire and whoever wrote it didn't understand why it was so effective in Spec Ops.
The scene from Spec Ops I'm referring to is the one where you are surrounded by the crowd. When I played it I thought this was one of those scenes where I'm being forced to to do something bad. I thought this because with the white phosphor scene before I realised what was going to happen and found there was no way to avoid it. I shot into the crowd.
It was only later when talking to a friend about the game that I found out that the game actually has lots of ways to approach various scenes in the game it's just that you never think that the these would be possible.
This is what makes Spec Ops so effective. You come to expect that you have no choice over how events will play out. It plays on it's own previous conventions and also MGS3 with it's brilliant ending where it forces the player to shoot the Boss. Because of this you don't realise the choice is there. However it is there and the game berates at the end for the actions you take.
When you put a player in a new virtual environment most often the player will test the boundaries of this new space. Where Spec Ops succeeds is that not only does it fool most players into thinking they have no choice but if a player decides to test the boundaries of the environment the developers have added scenarios for this eventuality. If I thought I was being clever in the above scenario in Spec Ops and shot into the air I would have been surprised to realise that the developers had taken into account this action.
And this is where the Last of Us fails. It tries to do what Spec Ops did so well without understanding why Spec Ops worked. You are put in a similar situation with full control over the character but since, as the I heard the writer say, they wanted to tell their own story, you have no choice in how it goes down.
After my experience with Spec Ops I decided to take a non-violent approach to this scenario. I shot over the doctor holding the scalpel. He didn't flinch. I walked up to him looking for a prompt or expecting him to swing at me, he just glitched and ended up pointing in the wrong direction. Then I shot him in the toe and he went down like he's been hit with a sniper rifle in the chest. My suspension of disbelief was well and truly shattered.
What Naughty Dog did was lie to the player. They put you in a position where you thought you had a choice but there was only one way to complete it, the way Naughty Dog wanted you to. They forgot the cardinal rule of game design that a player will test their environment and ultimately this scene came off far less effective than if it was a cutscene.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 51040
You're missing the point,I'm talking about all the times in Spec Ops were you actually did have a choice. Or perhaps I've just made my point because you didn't notice that you had a choice in Spec Ops which goes to show why I thought it was effective. As I said with many of the decisions in Spec Ops there is actually a choice which is what makes it so effective. Whereas in Spec Ops if I decided to test the game and see if I could break it the game would surprise you because there was an actually choice where you thought there was none. I'm not bemoaning the lack of choice you had in the Last of Us, sure it worked in MGS3. The problem with the Last of Us is that if the player decided to test the scenario like I did the developer had not accounted for this and the whole scene just breaks apart. It was a terrible storytelling decision by Naughty Dog in that regard and would have played out better as a cutscene like for instance when he kills the firefly head honcho.
0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 51040
I really don't mind if the story they wanted to tell was one where the player has no choice in the matter. I'm totally fine with that.
My problem is presenting that scene in the way it was presented. The player is in control, it seems the player has a choice but if they make a choice the choice other than the one choice that Naughty Dog want the player to make the scene utterly breaks down and destroys the suspension of disbelief just like it did for me.
It would be much better handled the way MGS3 did it. You don't want to pull that trigger but ultimately it's the only choice, there's no way for the player to mess if up and the player isn't given the illusion of choice that when they make another choice the game breaks down and in my case even glitches a bit. Why give the player that illusion of choice if the game is going to glitch or do something silly just like the last of us did? It would have been better handled if joel pointed the gun at the surgeon and let the player pull the trigger ala MGS3 rather than present something that had the potential to ruin the atmosphere and suspension of disbelief especially considering how well it had immersed me as a player up to that point.
I know what Naughty Dog were going for as you say 'we're being shown the darkest recesses of Joel's journey and psyche, a final manifestation of this troubled, painful world he's living in'. What I got was glitchy animation and a laughable death animation for someone getting shot in the toe.
It just didn't work for me.
It's a very poorly done scene imo and I'm pretty sure they were trying for what spec ops did but did it badly.
It's a blemish on something I thought was otherwise well done.
BTW you really should play Spec Ops. I'd love to hear your opinion on it.
0 -
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 51040
As I said I've no problem that there was no choice to be made in the story and I'm perfectly fine that Naughty Dog wanted to tell their story. It's presenting that scene the way they did is what I'm not happy with. It's exactly those oversights that you mention that make the scene seem utterly ridiculous at a time when it really shouldn't within the story. Doing it in this way was the cause of this and I think it was a bad choice by Naughty Dog.
This is the reason why I think Spec Ops did it mostly right. When you are presented with a scene like the one in Last of Us there were no 'oversights'. If you wanted to approach the scene differently you could and Yager had taken this into account so the game reacted appropriately and never seemed silly in the way Last of Us did. It worked in Spec Ops because there were no oversights and really if you want to present a scene like this to the player you can't have any over sights. It's pretty much akin to a level designed not bothering to put collision detection on a wall because 'sure who's going to try to jump through that'. As every good game designer should know someone will always try it and you either need to make sure there are no oversights or approach the game differently.
Another thing I have to commend Yager on was that during my playthrough of the game I felt that I had no choice when in fact I did. In the Last of Us I felt like I had a choice when I actually didn't. The developers lied to the player and and as a result suspension of disbelief was broken.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 51040
NotorietyH wrote: »Sounds like your game glitched. You don't have to shoot the doctors. I thought I had to, and killed them all, not realising that even if you kill the first doctor you don't have to kill the other two. It was only after I found out I didn't have to kill them that I realised just how effectively the game had put me in Joel's shoes.
The Naughty Dog guys talk about it in this article. Pity it didn't work for you, as it really adds to the ending I think.
The game didn't glitch, other than when I approached the doctor too close he started pointing the scalpel the wrong way. I'm talking about the killing the first doctor. The scene worked perfectly.
In fact having the choice of not killing the other two is something that did work. It's the whole first doctor thing I have problems with.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 51040
It's because the game presented a scene which had possible scenarios Naughty Dog failed to cover, which is poor design. My point is because of this it's a bad choice for the linear storytelling approach Naughty Dog were going for and therefore handled poorly compared to say Spec Ops which handled similar situations a lot better at times.
0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »WARNING! There's some major Spec Ops and MGS3 spoilers ahead.Been thinking about this a lot today and just want to get it off my chest. The more I think about the surgery scene the more I think it was kind of terrible.
My two main problems is that it was a rip off of a similar scene from Spec Ops but the execution in this case was dire and whoever wrote it didn't understand why it was so effective in Spec Ops.
The scene from Spec Ops I'm referring to is the one where you are surrounded by the crowd. When I played it I thought this was one of those scenes where I'm being forced to to do something bad. I thought this because with the white phosphor scene before I realised what was going to happen and found there was no way to avoid it. I shot into the crowd.
It was only later when talking to a friend about the game that I found out that the game actually has lots of ways to approach various scenes in the game it's just that you never think that the these would be possible.
This is what makes Spec Ops so effective. You come to expect that you have no choice over how events will play out. It plays on it's own previous conventions and also MGS3 with it's brilliant ending where it forces the player to shoot the Boss. Because of this you don't realise the choice is there. However it is there and the game berates at the end for the actions you take.
When you put a player in a new virtual environment most often the player will test the boundaries of this new space. Where Spec Ops succeeds is that not only does it fool most players into thinking they have no choice but if a player decides to test the boundaries of the environment the developers have added scenarios for this eventuality. If I thought I was being clever in the above scenario in Spec Ops and shot into the air I would have been surprised to realise that the developers had taken into account this action.
And this is where the Last of Us fails. It tries to do what Spec Ops did so well without understanding why Spec Ops worked. You are put in a similar situation with full control over the character but since, as the I heard the writer say, they wanted to tell their own story, you have no choice in how it goes down.
After my experience with Spec Ops I decided to take a non-violent approach to this scenario. I shot over the doctor holding the scalpel. He didn't flinch. I walked up to him looking for a prompt or expecting him to swing at me, he just glitched and ended up pointing in the wrong direction. Then I shot him in the toe and he went down like he's been hit with a sniper rifle in the chest. My suspension of disbelief was well and truly shattered.
What Naughty Dog did was lie to the player. They put you in a position where you thought you had a choice but there was only one way to complete it, the way Naughty Dog wanted you to. They forgot the cardinal rule of game design that a player will test their environment and ultimately this scene came off far less effective than if it was a cutscene.
What a bizarre post. The game has nothing in common with spec ops and it doesn't try to. It's a set story and there is and was never any thought behind giving the player a choice. You kill the doctor/doctors and advance the scene, that's it. How you came up with the above is hard to comprehend. It's like you're looking for problems that frankly aren't there!
They put you in a position to feel the weight of the kill, to pull the trigger yourself and put the final play in motion of Joels ruthlessness and selfishness. There is no choice and ND never intended the player to think their was. You say you found the scene to be terrible but you're looking for way too much from it and making comparisons which to be honest I doubt anyone else even thought of but you.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 51040
It's only this scene I had problems with and as I've had to repeat myself many times I'm not annoyed the game gave you no choice. My problem is that in the linear narrative Naughty Dog was going for the scene was a bad choice to make.
Try this if you ever get to that scene again. Try to do anything but kill the doctor and see just how downright silly it is. It's why I think the approach MGS3 took was much better. It didn't give the player any affordances to make it silly.
My comparison to spec ops is to show the type of narractive that such a scene worked in and how it can be done properly.
0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 51040
Actually the scene I'm referring to in Spec Ops is the onewhen the angry mob kill your team mate.You do actually have a choice to make in that scene on what to do.
I actually think that thewhite phosphorous scenesuffers from the same problems as the scene in the last of us since I figured what would happen but the game wanted me to play it out by it's rules.
Then again Spec Ops is such a weird game that I wouldn't put it past the developers that they made that scene that way intentionally.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 51040
I actually liked Bill's character. He seemed one dimensional until I found the note from his partner just before the end of that chapter. That one note made all the difference to fleshing him out.
0 -
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiVmKnrjBMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCdS8aOq_yg
Advertisement