Backfire wrote: » I'm enjoying it so far I played and finished the first 2 and I know its more of the same but eh its fine for me. I've played worse.
Retr0gamer wrote: » Actually a few parts of this game really annoyed me where I wanted to sneak past enemies and stealth them but the game actively did not let me. It was weird I was sneaking up behind enemies to get a back attack and they would always hear me and then rip me apart. It got really frustrating since I didn't know what I was doing wrong. Took me a lot of frustrating deaths to realise that the developers had designated this place as somewhere where stealth doesn't work. Very, very poor and inconsistent game design there. Fortunately I only encountered it in one or two areas.
Timmyctc wrote: » Are you sure you just didn't get spotted by someone? Stealth seemed to work in all areas except one "kill the enemies to advance" area for moi. And that awful zombie area in the sewers with the ambusher zombies
krudler wrote: » Yeah the section where Ellie is covering Joel with the sniper rifle drove me nuts, you should have been able to move past the enemies rather than take them all out, and then the last encounter with the infected you can get past every one of them without firing a shot, the flooded tunnel part.
Timmyctc wrote: » You can get past the infected in the tunnel undetected though.
Retr0gamer wrote: » There was one part when you get seperated from Ellie and the other two in the sewers where sneeaking up on the infected just did not work, they were normal infected as well not clickers. It only happens in a very small number of cases, 2 or 3 maybe but it was annoying all the same since it's inconsistent with the rest of the game where stealth is a viable tactic and when it's not the player is given cues that the enemy is alerted to their presence. TBH it felt more like a bug than anything.
Retr0gamer wrote: » Yeah it was.
Retr0gamer wrote: » Well if they were different enemies where stealth and stealth attacks don't work then Naughty Dog did a very poor job of communicating that to the player. They look the same as the regular infected and and act no different from what I could tell and there was no mention of there being different this new type and how it behaves.
Timmyctc wrote: » Also to add. Naughty Dog handled it perfectly imo. The four types if I recall correctly were (in no particular order, Runners, Infected, Clickers and Bloaters) You either collect a handout or you start with it detailing all the enemies and their traits bar the bloaters. The characters have experienced 20 years with the infected so they cant rightly just drop in a conversation about the 4 variations of enemies or anything like that. Similar to the way not much is given about the backstory of the characters. It would be akin to Bill and Joel having a conversation along the lines of "You owe me for that time 4 years ago when I saved your life during a supply drop gone wrong" etc.
Retr0gamer wrote: » Sorry but if they did communicate that well people wouldn't have had trouble with it. Also either there was no runners up to that point or else the stealth was working well on them because other than the handful of incidents it did happen in I didn't notice a difference between the types. They did well distinguishing clickers from the other types of infected with visuals and audio cues from the enemies and characters, they failed with the runners. The Last of Us wiki says both stalkers and runners can be shived and strangled whereas the ones in the areas we are talking about were immune to this by the fact that it's impossible to sneak up on them without the AI being alerted. It was only ever in these 2 or 3 areas this happens. This seems to indicate it's a bug or bad game design where naughty dog arbitrarily changed the rules of the game.
johnny_ultimate wrote: » Dialing back a few posts to the whole 'too much combat' complaint, I wouldn't say this is a problem unique to The Last of Us - in fact, it has effected any number of otherwise excellent games to the point where I'd almost consider it one of the most unwelcome general gaming trends. Bioshock Infinite and Spec Ops: The Line both struggle to bring the same imagination and coherence to their gameplay as they do their world building and storytelling, falling back on another combat arena with slightly depressing frequency. You see it in stuff like the Mass Effect games too, a clear dividing line between the narrative and the combat corridors that inevitably separate one narrative event from the next. The funny thing is that in all these games is that very often the quieter moments are the ones we remember - giraffes, God Only Knows etc... Lightly remixed arena battles will just grow repetitive.
krudler wrote: » Agree, I got tired of the combat in Bioshock Infinite really quickly, the section where you first meet Elizabeth going through the different rooms with info about "the specimen" was fantastic, you were being given a ton of info about what she was without the game directly telling you through a cutscene or piles of dialogue. Then after the dozenth or so "uh oh those doors won't open until all these guys are dead and I'll mostly use that tonic thing I just picked up" section just couldn't be bothered with it. Overall I enjoyed the combat in The Last Of Us but it's the setting and atmosphere that makes it so compelling, there was definitely a few sections where it felt like a chore taking out yet another group of armed guys, but stuff like the collapsed skyscraper, the college campus, Ellie in the woods with the deer etc, all made up for it. Same as Uncharted, the opening of 2 with Drake clambering up the train or moving the gigantic statue around later on, or even standing atop that hotel and gawking at the spectacular view were far more enjoyable than fighting a pile of generic soldiers yet again, developers should have more faith in the narrative they're giving us and not jam in as many combat sections as possible to appeal to the COD generation crowd who want to see stuff blow up every few minutes.
johnny_ultimate wrote: » Dialing back a few posts to the whole 'too much combat' complaint, I wouldn't say this is a problem unique to The Last of Us - in fact, it has effected any number of otherwise excellent games to the point where I'd almost consider it one of the most unwelcome general gaming trends. Bioshock Infinite and Spec Ops: The Line both struggle to bring the same imagination and coherence to their gameplay as they do their world building and storytelling, falling back on another combat arena with slightly depressing frequency. You see it in stuff like the Mass Effect games too, a clear dividing line between the narrative and the combat corridors that inevitably separate one narrative event from the next. The funny thing is that in all these games is that very often the quieter moments are the ones we remember - giraffes, God Only Knows etc... Lightly remixed arena battles will just grow repetitive. I think it's a reason why the pared down games like Gone Home, Dear Esther and Journey are so satisfying thematically and narratively - in focusing solely on the storytelling, even to the point of giving the player little to do other than traverse the landscape, they allow the more important points to truly shine. In many of these blockbuster games, the combat can be a regrettable distraction. Don't get me wrong - I really enjoyed some of the Last of Us action sequences, as I thought several of them were very tense and made the player feel like Joel was in actual mortal danger (not Elly, though, who could do a ****ing singing & dancing Marcarena in front of a zombie and be OK, and I still think the bit where Joel was injured could have been developed significantly deeper in terms of actual gameplay). But there were other bits where I wish they just cut some of the crap, particularly that ridiculous sniper rifle genocide sequence. Funny enough, the exploration of the abandoned suburb before that was one of the most wonderful of the game, full of detail and clever subtle storytelling. it's a shame it is book-ended with a silly body count. Developers like Naughty Dog need to trust that the player will not get bored without being forced to kill something every so often. This game could easily have lost some of the more 'filler' like combat and still been immensely satisfying over a tighter but still very healthy running time. With that said, what the three aforementioned games - Spec Ops, Bioshock and The Last of Us - all do really well is developing characters that have strongly developed, convincing reasons for being as violent as they are, and making that fact a fundamental foundation of the world and story (occasionally to the point of making the player feel like absolute ****). It's actually amazing how rarely this has been done before. Uncharted's actively contradictory story and gameplay have became more pronounced as the series has progressed, but here Joel is absolutely remorseless and aware that he must commit deplorable acts to survive. At least that goes someway to justifying the fact he will strangle a bandit without a second thought. Still, we need more rules broken, gameplay with greater variety that doesn't fall back on tried and tested methods. It is just another example of why mainstream games like this need to be far more experimental in the gameplay department, or be more liberal when it comes to quieter moments.
Timmyctc wrote: » Why CoD is shoehorned into any conversation about the negative aspects of gaming is I won't know. Do you really thing NG were like "Call of Duty is popular, lets put more action sequences in our games" I massively doubt it. Call of Duty hasn't even influenced games in its own genre that much, look as far as BF3 and they did their own thing, stuck with it and made a massively more enjoyable game.
C14N wrote: » Well the simple fact is that when a game is as massively successful as Call of Duty, it's going to be a very influential game series. No, of course Naughty Dog didn't just go into a meeting and say "let's try to copy COD because that will probably make our game popular too" but that doesn't mean that the series hasn't greatly impacted many other games this generation, for better or worse, including The Last of Us. Vincent Van Gogh was a very influential painter, it doesn't mean an artist influenced by him just sat down and said "I bet if I use the same techniques, my paintings will also be worth millions of Euro". The Beatles are a highly influential band, it doesn't mean other bands just got together and said "if we try to sound like the Beatles, we'll be really successful too". Influence isn't usually that straightforward. However I have to disagree on the Battlefield thing. I admit I've only played the first 3 levels of BF3 so far but up to the point I'm at, it's almost indistinguishable from COD save for the improved visuals. All the stuff that COD4 made popular are there: aiming down sight, regenerating health, cool high-tech weapons, scripted set-pieces, heavy online multiplayer focus, gung-ho fighting "terrorists". I honestly struggle to find two games from different publishers that are so similar.
gimli2112 wrote: » I had to take a break from Survivor. Me and Ellie are currently trapped in a bar by four baddies. I have 1/2 health, no bullets or medi packs and a bottle
