The Last of Us

Why the fuck is this game so highly regarded? I picked up the remastered version for PS4 and after a while of playing it I really feel like I'm missing something.
Even ignoring how annoying the girl is, it's still not good. The story (so far, as I'm only at the part where you're trying to get a car) is generic as fuck and the gameplay itself is boring too.
What exactly makes this a good game?

You're not missing anything, we had a thread about this yesterday. The most compelling argument that anyone had for it being good was that it was "better than RE6."

The good writing, atmosphere, character development....

Basically, it's not like a game. It's why it gets praised so much, I like it, but it's a 7/10 at best.

>Neil Druckmann
>good writing
pick one and exclusively one

...

>The good writing
Can you expand on this? I want to know what makes the story good because I'm not seeing it.

I know, you're contrarian as fuck.
Yes, Neil knows how to write good dialogue and stories. It's a shame that he's a SJW retard.

It's a solid game, specially the multi-player

Shame that Sup Forumseddit is so contrarian

I'm not even a Sup Forums regular, I just wanted to know specific reasons why people think this game is good so maybe I could find the motivation to play it again. I hate buying games and not completing them.

You won't find the motivation. It's just not a good video game.

It's a good game with a decent plot and gameplay

If you don't find motivation, maybe the game is not the problem, maybe the problem is (you)

Because you haven't played it.

It's because of people who aren't great at video games. I picked up the PS3 a couple years back, and I had some fun with it, but it felt like your average third person shooter. The thing that stuck out to me is that you had all these moments where you're told to keep quiet or stick to the other characters, but if you played well enough, it didn't matter. The game gave you more than enough tools to get the job done, and arguably the only times you couldn't barrel through are where there are mobs of infected or when you have to sneak past clickers. Even then you can still tank most of the latter with a piece of wood while with the former, most of my fun with it is that you could chuck rocks right at them and they wouldn't know what's up. The story was alright, but it didn't drag me in because it was so easy to break.

So that's when it sunk in that the reason so many people loved the game is because they were bad at it. The people who appreciated the most were those who felt the danger of it. They actually had to worry about bandits, soldiers, infected, etc. If you suck at third person shooters, then was no dissonance between when clickers and bandits were a huge threat in the prepared experience.

so tl;dr
If you're good, then you easily break the game
If you're bad, then it's a coherent and immersive experience
It's still a bad game for not bridging that gap

>It's a good game
it's not
>decent plot
emphasis on decent, plus the story concept is such tired bullshit at this point
>gameplay
that's below decent

This is probably the best explanation of this game I've ever seen on this site, bravo user.

but what exactly makes the plot and gameplay decent?

how many more times are you gonna make this thread?

how many more times are you gonna buy the game "for the first time" only to tell us how bad and/or unimpressive it is to you?

serious question

Try to play the game on hard and ignore tools/bullets and it's easily one of the best survival horror games

Nice (opinion)

The multiplayer was awesome. The single player was alright at best. You spend to much of it walking and talking, moving ladders and doing stupid pallet garbage. That'd maybe be alright if the

Survivor difficulty mode should have been the default (or at least recommended) game mode. The game is far too forgiving and hand-holdy prior to that

>It's not
Pretty subjective. I think it's good. I consider myself a fan but I really hate it when someone starts talking about how perfect or how shit the game is. It's not either.

It tries to be a cinematic game and it's pretty much the only "cinematic" game I've played that actually accomplishes it. Tomb Raider and Uncharted are terrible in comparison.

>emphasis on decent, story concept is tired bullshit
Not at all, the story is good. It does rely on things we've seen before in other mediums, particularly cannibals, but unlike Walking Dead, it executes the moments well. The characters are characters and it's honestly the only game I've ever played with actual good, convincing development.

>gameplay
>below decent
It's good. Below decent means bad. If you call this game's gameplay bad, you've obviously never played a game with bad gameplay. Besides, it's far ahead of its cousin Uncharted when it comes to gameplay, especially on harder difficulties.

I actually enjoyed the ladders puzzles but that's just me

>it's easily one of the best survival horror games
lol

Story is compelling, but only after the tutorial shit ends. For me, that was around the time when that try-hard bitch collegue of Joel died.

The stealth and combat are serviceable, enhanced by the violence and resources being so-so scarce. Well-placed headshots will fuck a dude up and it's probably the most goriest game I've played in gen 7.

I liked the pacing of it. There's combat, exploration and most of the times the two co-exist to keep you on your toes.The levels aren't that big and there is a clear linear progression but it occassionally catered to my inner urban explorer and there were even some sequences that went the ol' survival horror route.

Storywise, it concludes satisfactory and I think it's a little gay that they opted to make a sequel, but on the other hand, I think it's the strongest effort that nu-ND has managed to create since they went in this direction with the boring-ass Uncharted games.

TLDR; it's the most tolerable story-driven TPS compared to tomb raider reboot, uncharted series, and the rest of this lame sub-genre's ilk

It is the video game equivalent of Oscar bait movies.

Game journalists are extremely insecure people because they never got a job in a real industry. Anything that brings games closer to movies is something that makes their pants wet.

Because game journals are corrupt.

this

It's not. Western games are rarely good, but normies eat it up anyway.

what difficulty did you play on, user?

>and ignore tools/bullets
so you have to set some arbitrary rules to make the game a challenge? sounds like a bad game to me

samefag

Agreeing with two separate people is no more samefagging than posting twice in a thread is

>I really feel like I'm missing something
Online multiplayer. You'll "git good" quickly once you play people dedicated to getting headshots on you.

It's probably the best example of a story driven TPS. If you're intellectually superior to everyone else, you'll probably think it's shit. But if you can set aside your autism and enjoy the game for what it is, you'll get good gameplay and a story that, while reliant on quite a few genre tropes, is very well executed and full of genuine emotion.

Also I forgot to say that the multiplayer is fucking amazing.

the game is 10/10 because the gay porn magazine joke and the negro kissing her in the DLC

> If you're intellectually superior to everyone else you wont like it
> is very well executed and full of genuine emotion.

sounds about right

>If you're intellectually superior to everyone else, you'll probably think it's shit
>if you actually know what you're talking about you'll see that it's garbage
was your post intended to make the game sound good? Because you're just reinforcing my own beliefs.

t. "i'm extremely smart, the only reason i'm failing in life is because i don't care about such trivial pursuits"

i tip my fedora to you

When did I say anything about failing or trivial pursuits? My life is going fine, the worst part of my day is reading TLoU threads.

The gameplay is good. The story and presentation are good. I dunno man, I can't really find fault with it. I think it's the best third person shooter since Resident Evil 4, with Vanquish in second place. People seem to hate it because it isn't paced like a coin-op arcade game with non-stop action, as if that's inherently a bad thing.

>The gameplay is good
but what makes it good exactly?

people here pretend the game has no gameplay but it's somewhat similar shit like with the tomb raider reboot games or uncharted series, only more refined as there is more risk/ reward involved in the combat

Controls feel tight, guns feel very powerful, ammo is rare and there's no regenerating health which naturally draws you in to the survivalist mindset, I really like the backpack/holster system which I think is the best solution to weapon limits ever used in a console shooter, etc. Basically, for me the gameplay takes the strengths of RE4 and adds another layer of depth that grounds the game in the post-apocalypse scavenger setting in a very satisfying way.

Honestly felt like if it was a movie it would be considered. 6/10 generic zombie movie.
Its about on par qith walkimg dead post season 1.

It wouldn't be considered anywhere near as good as it is as a game, which is what pisses me off so much

the MP says you're full of shit though

The beginning part in the city is like a shitty version of Resident Evil 2's opening segment without any gameplay.

high production values and solid execution of simple concepts

In other words
>a lot of money put into building a completely average wheel

That's not right

It's more like
>a lot of money and effort put into building a completely awesome wheel

Because it's still a wheel. But a really good one.

Every wheel does the same thing, user. They're all doomed to being just "acceptable."

Not that guy; I'm no writer so I don't have a textbook explanation but I can tell you what I consider good writing.

On a dialogue level, it's when the conversations seem natural, i.e. characters say things that are close to what people in real life would say. In other words, it's natural. Delivery is a huge part of it and TLoU has top notch performances as far as video games are concerned.

On a plot level, for me it's all about pacing and creating a sequence of events where every event is consequential, i.e. what happens in an event is a response to what happened in one of the previous events, and that includes character development. When writers show restraint and have characters behave consistently across different events, when the world doesn't break its own rules, and when it escalates properly, it's rewarding.

On that level I think TLoU succeeds, but you can definitely say that the premise is tropey and unoriginal.

a wheel can turn more smoothly and it can be shinier than a different wheel

in other words, the metaphor is completely valid, get fucked

I really can't wait for you to get out of your basement, enter the workforce, and realize how important it is to properly execute on an idea and how much of a difference it can make. It will blow your mind.

>a wheel can turn more smoothly
No, the mechanism turning the wheel can work at a higher level of operation. Not the wheel itself.

>the game's shiny so I like it!
Naughty Dog apologists everyone

What the hell are you talking about, are you saying that the most valuable thing someone can do is try to reinvent the wheel?

not only do you keep arguing pathetic semantics but you're also blatantly wrong to anyone who's mind has matured past the age of 2

It's not. The gameplay is terrible. The plot gets alright toward the end but it's probably the most overrated game not made by Nintendo.

And the wheel on the left has not only became less appealing due to weathering, but will also continue to hold up far longer than the metallic and petroleum based wheel on the right. Not to mention the insane level of straw grasping it takes to compare a wheel that is possibly millennia old to another that is only 3 to 4 decades old.

...

>actually continuing this retard-level line of thought

you need to go outside, user

Why does the argument that TLoU is good always devolve into implying people who don't like it are immature or mentally unsound?

>Why the fuck is this game so highly regarded?
>came out during the end of the zombie craze
>2013 was a boring year for gaming
>good animations & characters (compare it to andromeda for example
>PS3 didn't have any games so all the starved Sony fanboys were very excited to finally play something
I still like the game but Tlou - eh le part 2 looks fucking awful

No, I'm saying that there is a world of difference between doing an okay job and doing a great job. In other words, when two people do the same thing, it is not the same thing. Etc.

Go read a book, learn words and sentences.

And this argument was never about just quality of work, the post that got this all started was saying that it was good because it had a higher budget.

In a wheel metaphor that should make more sense than the others, which of these two would you rather buy?
>An engineer offers to make you a wheel for $100
>An artist offers to make you a wheel for $1000
Will the artist make you a better wheel just because it costs more? Or will they just choose whatever material looks best and just make it shiny?

maybe because you keep arguing about wheels

An no one has of yet been able to give me a reason why saying a super high budget wheel is not necessarily better than one that costs a much more modest price. You're problem is that you're getting fixated on the subject of wheels, not what the wheels stand for.

>[...]much more modest price
is wrong* should be at the end

the post said "high production values and solid execution of simple concepts"

the fact the all you managed to extract from it was "it had a high budget" says all we need to know about your reading comprehension. money is only half the equation

but I'll give it another shot to illustrate, what's the difference between Bioware blowing 50 million on a game and CD Projekt blowing 50 million on a game? this one should be easy.

from listening to my niece talk about the game back when she played at launch, it was the feels the character's were supposed to give you.

i personally haven't played the game.

it was already established that your broken metaphor was fixed, but you still continue arguing with that

which makes it pointless to try and correct you

>what's the difference between Bioware blowing 50 million on a game and CD Projekt blowing 50 million on a game
Bioware spent it all by spending too much and being lazy, while CDPR spent it all by overextending what they wanted to do. Your point?

>the good ole "you're too stupid to argue with"
great way of hiding the fact that you have no actual basis in calling me wrong

re:
thus, as that poster said; get fucked

the way they spent money = execution on an idea

bioware even fucking said they took a page out of the witcher book and still delivered a turd

when two people (or companies) try to do the same thing with the same resources, the results can be wildly different. both games have high production values, but one is markedly worse than the other.

an argument I already proved wrong, get fucked yourself

I'm intrigued, but how does this tie into TLoU? As much as I hate bioware, ME:A is still about on par with TLoU in terms of quality. Both have god awful gameplay and cost a lot of money to make, while the Witcher is better than both yet made by less people for less money.

I guess I was wrong then; not all wheels are created equal, the cheaper ones made by people who care are better. AKA wheels not made by naughty dog.

The real reason is because incest fantasies

ITT: pcbros and Nintentoddlers

Stay fucking blasted. You're not getting the sequel either

>ITT: Sup Forums Claiming the 95 on metacritic (92 userscore) aren't trustworthy
>all other threads on Sup Forums: HOLY FUCK 98 BUY SWiTCH and BOTW OMg!!111
Sony is wrongfully shitposted on this board.

It deserved its place as goty when it was first out on the ps3. It still gets an unrealistic and undeserved amount of praise though, then again the Uncharted 4 got the same treatment by the big game review companies.

>halfway through the game
>cutscene of them walking through a large high rise building
>Ellie squirming around,"wait here I'll be back in a minute"
>Riley hesitantly,"Okay..."
>As Ellie walks away Riley,"wait where are You going?"
>no answer as Ellie disappears around the corner
>Riley quietly and curiously searches around for Ellie
>she soon finds Ellie squatted in the corner of one of the old rooms with her pants and underwear around her ankles peeing
>Ellie shocked turning to see Riley at her side,"What I had to pee"
>Riley watches intently as Ellie's stream finishes flooding the corner of the room with a big puddle of her pee
>Riley,"so You have hair down there as well"
>Ellie,"I thought that all girls our age did" as she stands up looking down at her own small, and light colored pubic bush before pulling her pants and underwear back up
>Ellie looking Riley in the eyes,"wait if You got to see mine why can't I see Yours"
>Riley,"Fine by me" Riley says with a happy expression as she pulls down her pants and underwear

The chapter replay is beyond what I imagined:

>Play through the entire game on PS4
>"Chapter Select" unlocked
>Pick a chapter from a way earlier point because I missed a few things and conversations
>Check my upgrades and items
>Suddenly I realize I lost ALL of my upgrades and the game magically remembers what upgrades I had in that very chapter
>Can't even go forward anymore through chapter select

I've never seen anything this broken and thoughtless in a while.