nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Last of Us

WolfForager

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp4CFp28Y48

Wesbite: http://www.lastofus.com/ - Includes a video of ants, has people believing that it could be a zombie game ie. Cordyceps

The VGA's are on the 10th of Dec however the website points to something happening on the 7th, probably another teaser.

Thoughts?

I'll update the OP if i learn more!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

irishmover

Nidgeweasel wrote: »

Didn't like the ending.

The game is superb though.

What didnt you like about the ending?

macpac26

PSN Pre-Order working out cheaper than Amazon so i cancelled it and went with PSN.

Nice one Sony!

gimli2112

irishmover wrote: »

What didnt you like about the ending?

Saw a lot of people not liking the ending. Assume it's because

Joel saves Ellie and not the World.

I think he made the right choice personally.

irishmover

gimli2112 wrote: »

Saw a lot of people not liking the ending. Assume it's because
Joel saves Ellie and not the World.
I think he made the right choice personally.

It was the perfect ending to be honest.

Retr0gamer

I thought the ending had problems as well. First the scene in the

surgery was handled very poorly. The player is given a choice when there really is no choice and if you do what the developer doesn't want you to do the scene breaks down and it's ridiculous.

Other than that it was a good ending although it's been done to death. My only real complaint other than the first one is that it was over hyped by some people.

gimli2112

I didn't realise that as every time I played the game

I killed all the doctors

Didn't really see the alternative

THEY WERE GOING TO HURT ELLIE

Retr0gamer

gimli2112 wrote: »

I didn't realise that as every time I played the game
I killed all the doctors
Didn't really see the alternative
THEY WERE GOING TO HURT ELLIE

Well you

have to kill at least one of them. You don't have any choice in the matter but the player is given complete freedom so even if you take the choice of not shooting him or shooting over his head the game won't continue until you do what the programmer wants you to do and it looks silly. Spec Ops handles these type of situations a hell of a lot better and I felt that scenario was Naughty Dog aping Spec Ops badly.

nix

Retr0gamer wrote: »

it was a good ending although it's been done to death.

Done to death? what other game does an ending like that?

The ending is what made the story great if ya ask me, elevated the story to near perfect..

johnny_ultimate

I'm still massively confused about this comparison to Spec Ops you keep making. The only thing I think Naughty dog were trying to communicate with that scene was Joel's sheer determination, not some commentary on player choice or anything like that. I don't think there was ever any intention for it to be a multiple choice scenario, especially since nothing in the game to that point indicated that this was anything other than a linear, pre-set story or that it was 'breakable'. Perhaps it would have worked better as a non-interactive sequence, but certainly in my playthrough I understood what the only narrative appropriate option was and didn't give it a second thought so it worked perfectly fine. Even of it didn't work for you - and you're the only person I've seen criticise it on this thread or even elsewhere - it's a couple of seconds in an otherwise excellently judged finale. Don't think I've ever seen a game cut to black on such a perfectly tuned note.

Retr0gamer

nix wrote: »

Done to death? what other game does an ending like that?

The ending is what made the story great if ya ask me, elevated the story to near perfect..

Well can't think of it in games off the top of my head (actually just thought of one, Nier) but there's plenty of cases of a similar ending in literature and film. I'm not saying it's a bad ending, I liked it but it's far from wildly original.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm still massively confused about this comparison to Spec Ops you keep making. The only thing I think Naughty dog were trying to communicate with that scene was Joel's sheer determination, not some commentary on player choice or anything like that. I don't think there was ever any intention for it to be a multiple choice scenario, especially since nothing in the game to that point indicated that this was anything other than a linear, pre-set story or that it was 'breakable'. Perhaps it would have worked better as a non-interactive sequence, but certainly in my playthrough I understood what the only narrative appropriate option was and didn't give it a second thought so it worked perfectly fine.

Spec Ops gave the player a choice and if they noticed this choice the scene would play out differently. In last of us the player had free will of movement and where to aim and control of the character. If the player did anything but what the designer had envisioned the suspension of disbelief was broken and the scene looked and felt silly. In fact I'd say it's pure bad design and very close to being a bug due to bad design going by game design definitions. But yes for me it is a couple of seconds of poorly thought out design and narrative in an over all good narrative. It's more frustration that it was so near to being a lot better.

A better way to handle it would be like Metal Gear Solid 3's ending.

the player there was responsible for pulling the trigger but all other movement was taken away so the scene wouldn't seem silly and enforced the point that the player had no other choice.

Retr0gamer

Maybe it was just when I played the game, I was doing a course on game design and one of the first things you learn is that once you give the player any form of freedom the first thing the player does is test the boundaries of that freedom. It's the designers role to ensure that boundaries are in place to ensure that the player can't test break that illusion or make sure the world reacts in ways that don't break that illusion. For me it was pretty much a total failure of the very basics of game design principles.

Penn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Maybe it was just when I played the game, I was doing a course on game design and one of the first things you learn is that once you give the player any form of freedom the first thing the player does is test the boundaries of that freedom. It's the designers role to ensure that boundaries are in place to ensure that the player can't test break that illusion or make sure the world reacts in ways that don't break that illusion. For me it was pretty much a total failure of the very basics of game design principles.

That could be the problem itself though. You're looking behind the curtain, and subconsciously noticing these things. For me playing that part, I was just so engrossed that I didn't even feel like there was a choice. I did what Joel would have done, without thinking about it or seeing what I could or couldn't do. For me, that's part of what made the ending great. I did exactly what Joel would have done, as per the developer's story and what they led you towards doing.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Spec Ops gave the player a choice and if they noticed this choice the scene would play out differently. In last of us the player had free will of movement and where to aim and control of the character.

Again, this is putting aside the fact that Spec Ops and Last of Us are not trying to articulate the same thing, and that they articulate these different things in a radically different way. I'm all for player-led narratives or ones that satisfyingly or provocatively explore player choice, but realistically not every game can or even should be that. The Last of Us particularly is not that game, and spends 15 hours not being that game. Its parameters and rules have been laid out long before you reach the operating theatre. What it achieves in the process is a quality of direction, narrative and characterisation that no more 'interactive' narrative ever has. I wouldn't say that's even a debate - the quality of the writing, acting and even technology of Last of Us is objectively on a different level to any other game ever released. It's not even about originality: it's about the quality of the way it tells it story. It has its flaws and it has its limitations (mostly in gameplay terms) and its missed marks, but in telling a linear and pre-determined story - which, to be fair, is a type of storytelling that would include a pretty large majority of all games - it achieves a level of quality that no game ever has before. Joel and Ellie's journey and its destination simply wouldn't have packed as much of a punch or communicated what Naughty Dog wanted it to if there were variations and alternate endings. Indeed, as games like Mass Effect, Bioshock and more prove, it's an incredibly difficult thing to land a 'choose your own adventure' narrative in a successful way - or, should I say, a multitude of successful ways - compared to one that has only one outcome.

What that scene emphasises, in the game's final moments, is that there is no choice. In a way, one could even call it a punctuation mark, a definitive reminder of that. It's Naughty Dog clearly emphasising that this is the decision Joel, the character who has experienced all these events, makes. It's that reason that the final scenes achieve a level of poignancy and character consistency that a 'multiple choice' conclusion would have failed to. It's not a scene the designers handled lightly or without significant debate, and if a small percentage of players didn't buy it, it's fair to say a massive majority absolutely did and for them it emerged as one of the most devastating and powerful moments in the game. A quick google highlights how many people were fully immersed in 'the moment', and how many weren't - honestly, thinking there was an alternate outcome would suggest to me the game had lost you somewhere before that point anyway. The final 'kill' in the game is the one that everyone remembers, and the one that brings the protagonist's journey to a credible climax. Having the player doing it themselves adds a weight a cutscene wouldn't have.

A better way to handle it would be like Metal Gear Solid 3's ending.
the player there was responsible for pulling the trigger but all other movement was taken away so the scene wouldn't seem silly and enforced the point that the player had no other choice.

Possibly! But then not every game can just copy another one, and should strive to say what it wants to say in a different way than what has come before. We've had the MGS3 style ending before, so naturally it will be less effective the next time its done (and it has been done, if I recall correctly, in a few games like MW2).

[Deleted User]

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well you
have to kill at least one of them. You don't have any choice in the matter but the player is given complete freedom so even if you take the choice of not shooting him or shooting over his head the game won't continue until you do what the programmer wants you to do and it looks silly. Spec Ops handles these type of situations a hell of a lot better and I felt that scenario was Naughty Dog aping Spec Ops badly.

Think your missing the point slightly. It's completely story driven there is no choice and wouldn't make sense if there was a choice which could potentially effect the outcome of events that ND wanted to portray.

Zero-Cool

I remember when TLOU was first out and people started finishing it and a dev posted something like 'did you notice you

didn't have to kill the doctors'

(forgive me if I got it wrong) but I thought it was class as I had bust into that room,

saw Ellie on the table and

opened fire on them, death to all

! Whatever about the game mechanics at that certain part, it actually felt better knowing I was so engrossed in the game as Joel.

TrustedApple

If anyone is wondering CEX are still giving €19 cash for the PS3 game if you won't to save some money on get the game in any other store you like

.ak

I do understand what Retr0gamer means. Although I don't think it should effect how you feel about the story's ending. But certainly you shouldn't be given that amount of control if you want the player to do one thing along for the story.

I shot him in the leg first. Reloaded, tried just walking around - think he cuts you? I also shot both of them and yeah I tried shooting over their heads. It all comes to the same ending, so not sure why it gives you the ability to do it the way you want. Although I did find barging in and kneecapping the doctor fun.

Retr0gamer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The Last of Us particularly is not that game, and spends 15 hours not being that game. Its parameters and rules have been laid out long before you reach the operating theatre.

And that there is exactly my problem with it. For most of he game the Last of Us never pretends to be anything but a linear narrative mostly told through cutscenes with no choice given to the player. That's fine, it's the story it wants to tell. It wouldn't have worked as well if it let the player bunny hop around and circle strafe like crazy during important cutscenes. Then right at the end it gives the player the ability to do that. You might think its original but no matter how original it is it just didn't work for me.

The whole story has been Joel's story and yet right at the end they give the player the freedom to choose and yet there is no choice. Exploring beyond that choice breaks immersion and the game. It's quite simply a total failure on the developers part to not take into account what players would do.

even as far down as the animations, shooting the surgeon in the toe means he goes down like he took a round to the upper body.

it's a failure akin to a bad FPS where your way is blocked by a knee high wall and invisible barrier. The player pulls back the curtains and there's the wizard.

I'm not complaining about the lack of player choice in the scene, in complaining about that in a linear narrative it was a terrible idea and really one the developer would have solved with just the minimum amount of playtesting. It's that illusion of choice that when probed breaks the whole scene down that is the problem. There's two ways to do that scene. Make the player pull the trigger ala Mgs 3 or in the case of spec ops actually account for the choices the player will make and make the world/game react to them. Naughty dog did neither and the choice they took in that scene in my eyes was a bad and very poorly thought out decision. I think the Mgs method would have worked better but then again there is some choice in tat scene as well where the player can

choose to take out the other surgeons.

it's really confused to me about what it wants to be and really needed at least some testing. I'm making an assumption but I get the feeling the writer didn't test it because they wanted to leave it a surprise.

johnny_ultimate

I'd say it's an unfair assumption to say the game or that scene wasn't playtested

The Last of Us is a very well refined game, so I'd say it would be bizarre that they just haphazardly put a random scene in there without major testing. The interview I linked to above suggests the designers put a significant amount of thought into the scene (why would they be disingenuous about that?) and had a strong response from playtesters and refined it accordingly.

When Joel walks into the operating room, it used to be one giant cutscene. It was quite a bit different. And there was a designer, Peter Field, who advocated for it to be playable. And he argued for it, and we'd kind of wrack our brain for how to do it, and eventually he was right. We scrapped the whole cinematic and made it playable. And it helped even moreso than we had initially, the beginning really mirrors the end.

This would be my hypothesis: the scene was heavily playtested and drafted. The fact that a majority of players went with the designers' choice without question or a second thought and felt it a very powerful moment overwrote the fact that a much smaller minority felt it was a frustrating or unsuccessful moment. A calculated risk, then: they gambled that a few players would try to break it, compared to the many others who felt the decision to put the gun in the players hand without explicit commentary packed a powerful punch at a pivotal point in the narrative. That it was consistent with Joel's state of mind and actions up until that point. A cursory glance at the online discussion about that scene, even in this thread, would indicate that it emerged as a standout moment for far, far more players than the amount who thought it failed. I'd be very surprised indeed if Naughty Dog had expected anything else.

I'm not saying it couldn't have been handled better, or that it didn't work for some people and with good cause. But again I get the strong impression far from being one of the most haphazard moments in the game, it was in fact one of the most considered.

tok9

I've never understood the comparison with spec ops because it has the exact same issue. The player cannot progress without completing a certain action.

GottaGetGatt

Am i the only one who

didnt kill all the doctors?.You lads are callous.I bet ye shot the civilians on the airport mission in mw2

:eek:

Retr0gamer

tok9 wrote: »

I've never understood the comparison with spec ops because it has the exact same issue. The player cannot progress without completing a certain action.

The difference is spec ops took into account all the options players could take and the game reacted to them intelligently while last of us only had the one option and not following the script broke the immersion. It's why I think Yager did it so much better. They play tested the scenarios and took into account the different decisions the player could take and created scenarios around it. In the case of last of us if it was indeed play tested it was a case of '**** it, the majority won't do that'. Yager really went out of their way to make sure those scenarios worked something which probably took a huge investment of time and resources. What Naughty Dog did was either misguided (not thoroughly tested) or plain lazy or egotistical (was tested, not really bothered to change it because it didn't work for a minority).

I'm sorry JU but for me, the average gamer thought it was great, is not a valid argument

_Redzer_

Spec Ops bored the feck out of me. The atmosphere just wasn't gripping at all for me and it never grabbed my attention. Played for a few hours and never came back to it, whereas TLOU got me hooked pretty much straight away and I loved it all.

tok9

But that's where I have the issue with your argument as what happened to you in TLOU seemed to happen to me in Spec Ops.

Major spec ops spoiler ahead. For the

white phosphorus

section, you have to use the

mortor

. There is no other choice. The player can walk around the whole enviroment.. there is even a rope but you can't climb down it until you have used

mortor

.

Also GottaGetGatt, you are not the only one

Edit: With that the above said.. I do actually agree with you but not with your argument. I didn't have an issue with it but there really should have been the option to

let them all live and progress.

Retr0gamer

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Spec Ops bored the feck out of me. The atmosphere just wasn't gripping at all for me and it never grabbed my attention. Played for a few hours and never came back to it, whereas TLOU got me hooked pretty much straight away and I loved it all.

That's totally besides the point. Sure spec ops had issues like it being a pretty run of the mill shooter but narratively I thought it was superb although there's not really a comparison with last of us which was more like a typical blockbuster while spec ops was well in the art house arena. I'm just being pedantic about that one scene because I'm interested in when games don't use the typical cutscenes driven narrative and try to ape films and try something that only games can do.

Retr0gamer

tok9 wrote: »

But that's where I have the issue with your argument as what happened to you in TLOU seemed to happen to me in Spec Ops.

Major spec ops spoiler ahead. For the
white phosphorus
section, you have to use the
mortor
. There is no other choice. The player can walk around the whole enviroment.. there is even a rope but you can't climb down it until you have used
mortor
.

Also GottaGetGatt, you are not the only one

Yeah I get you and there was no choice there. But then spec ops actually built that into the narrative. As the producer said there was a choice there, stop playing the game. If you dont then the game goes out of its way to make you feel horrible about what you are doing. That scene was never meant to give the player a choice. While I'd normally call that arty fatty nonsense it is in fact entirely consistent with the games narrative. So for me that scene is actually highlighting all the problems that the scene in the last of us had and commenting in it. For me they aren't analogous. However your frustration with that scene is probably what I felt with the scene in the last of us.

Where's my hipster hat.

johnny_ultimate

I'd love a blockbuster film with even half the character depth of The Last of Us

Retr0gamer

tok9 wrote: »

Edit: With that the above said.. I do actually agree with you but not with your argument. I didn't have an issue with it but there really should have been the option to
let them all live and progress.

I actually don't agree with you at all here. There should have been no option but it should have been handled in a different and much better way.

Retr0gamer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'd love a blockbuster film with even half the character depth of The Last of Us

New Transformers not good enough for you?

Evade

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The difference is spec ops took into account all the options players could take and the game reacted to them intelligently while last of us only had the one option and not following the script broke the immersion. It's why I think Yager did it so much better. They play tested the scenarios and took into account the different decisions the player could take and created scenarios around it. In the case of last of us if it was indeed play tested it was a case of '**** it, the majority won't do that'. Yager really went out of their way to make sure those scenarios worked something which probably took a huge investment of time and resources. What Naughty Dog did was either misguided (not thoroughly tested) or plain lazy or egotistical (was tested, not really bothered to change it because it didn't work for a minority).

I'm sorry JU but for me, the average gamer thought it was great, is not a valid argument

Spec Ops is arguably more guilty of doing what you claim the ending of tLoU does with the

white phosphorus mortar set piece

.

EDIT: tok9 got there before me.