> Most gamers would disagree with you. That's alright, art is subjective and different people are allowed to like different things. Maybe you just don't like games with a lot of story? If so there are plenty of genres that aren't story heavy like arcade games, tile-matching/match 3 games, fighting, FPS, sports, etc. Or maybe action/adventure might just not be the genre for you?
I understand it is a contrarian take. That doesn't mean that it is without merit. I also find it tiresome when people just claim everything is subjective when it really isn't.
The game play is bad. Joel's movement is slow, like too slow. You can't take certain enemies down without certain weapons. The scavenging aspect becomes a chore.
The buddy system they demoed originally was downgraded heavily from the original E3 demo, which was probably 20 years ago now. They took Uncharted, slowed it down and layered a depressing story on top which people think is deep.
The game is boring to play once you know the story. The presentation is excellent, masks this. It does not change the fact that the gameplay is at best "ok". It has virtually no replayability, to the point where I was dreading having to play the next section, as I knew it was a total chore.
There are plenty of problems that I can point to that are not subjective.
> As for original mechanics there's very little out there, but that was true even in the 2000s to the mid-2010s (which would include both uncharted, and the last of us). Most games are just building off of what's been done before. You can find clever twists on old mechanics or rare combinations of them, but it's very hard to find something really different. When you do, it's hit or miss on them being worthwhile, but sometimes the novelty helps make up for the shortcomings.
I am talking about the fact that they didn't even bother changing it. IIRC, in the Farcry games, you can essentially poison/confuse enemies via arrows or something. This exists in a bunch of games.
Ghosts of Tshushima has the exact same mechanic. They didn't even bother dressing it up differently. The game is fun when you are taking out the camps. However, there is the whole Assassin's Creed gameplay collect-a-thon.
A lot of the games are carbon-copy clones of one another, and the only thing that is different is the setting.
> Upgrade systems are supposed to provide progression. It rewards you for your progress in the game with fun abilities. It also helps keep gameplay fresh over the 25/40/60/120+ hours you play by giving you a steady stream of exciting new abilities/weapons to try out. There's often a new game+ option that lets you play the game again with all the best abilities from the start. Upgrade systems are generally a good thing! Sometimes things can go wrong though, for example one of the many problems with Marvel's Spider-Man 2 was starting your character out far too weak compared to how he was at end of the first game and the upgrades you eventually got weren't great either.
I know what it's supposed to do. The games are long because they are padding with bullshit. Why do I want to write haikus in an action game? It's not even a mini game, FFS. They really shouldn't be. It becomes a chore. I've got hundreds of hours in Hell Divers, yet it isn't because I can fire up the game for 30 minutes or all Saturday evening.
How it is implemented often sucks. I am supposed to believe at the start of Ghosts of Tshushima, Jin, who is a trained samurai, can barely fight. The old GoW games at least de-powered you via the plot device, and all the core game mechanics still worked. Why do I have to have a cut scene (which you have to play through but is still really a cut scene) to stab a Mongol in the back?
How about I start awesome and become even more awesome? Or make it make sense that I am weak and incorporate it into the gameplay itself.
> Speaking as a somewhat older gamer, if you really want variety in gameplay I'd recommend trying to branch out to new genres, indie titles, and lower budget PC games. The AAA games with huge budgets can tell a great story with amazing visuals and satisfying gameplay but they aren't going to take a lot of risks because of the amount of money on the line. That might also be why they can come off as PG-13, they want a wide audience.
I am not talking about what I like/don't like. My entire critique is around the problems with the Last of Us and Triple-A games, as you specifically mentioned. I play different games these days and just picked up Ghost of Tsushima because it was on sale and I heard it was good.
As for PG-13, the old God of War games managed to garner a wide audience while being R rated. The argument doesn't make sense.
They also soft-censor a lot of games. For example, the Stellar Blade demo originally (it was patched later) had a lot of gore and cleavage. The game that finally released toned down both.
The new Tomb Raider games (not so new now), Lara is completely sexless. You have this gorgeous athletic woman, and nobody finds her attractive or even comments on it?
> That doesn't mean that it is without merit. I also find it tiresome when people just claim everything is subjective when it really isn't.
I mean, if you want to look at things purely objectively, the last of us was a great game. It made tons of money, got amazing reviews, its recommended and loved by gamers, it frequently appears in lists of the best games ever made, it's won literally hundreds of awards, other game developers have cited it as an influence in their own highly acclaimed works, and it spawned (for better or worse) a media franchise that includes books, comics, television, a stage production, a Universal Studios theme part attraction, a sequel, and a handful of remakes/releases.
I struggle to come up with a single objective measure for a good game is that the last of us doesn't satisfy. It hits every benchmark except your personal feelings about it. Even as a fan I'd agree that it wasn't without flaws, but none of them were enough to make the game a bad one. The slow movement and scavenging were a part of the game's atmosphere that to many were actually beneficial to the game.
> The game is boring to play once you know the story.
I, and countless others, have replayed the game and didn't have that issue. It's kind of like going back to movie or book. Some people don't see the point in that either. It's not the best game for replay value. but there are some alternate game options provided and collectables if you missed any in the first run. Players can also experiment with with different weapons/upgrades/tactics. I suspect that most people who go back, go back for the story.
> How about I start awesome and become even more awesome? Or make it make sense that I am weak and incorporate it into the gameplay itself.
I agree with you there. If they're going to start you out weak when the character shouldn't be (I'll point again at spiderman here) they should at least come up with a reason for it. It's can still feel kind of cheap when all your powers are taken from you just so that you have to gain them back again, but some games don't even bother.
> As for PG-13, the old God of War games managed to garner a wide audience while being R rated. The argument doesn't make sense.
Sure, old God of War games. The nudity in those games have been a source of controversy and it's been dialed back. Not that it had any impact on the actual rating thanks to tons of violence but prudish Americans are fine with killing for some reason while drawing the line at boobs. There's no doubt that there will be people who won't or can't play games with a lot of nudity. Personally, I think America should grow up and get over the weird sex hangups, but Corporate America is full of cowards who only care about the bottom line and that doesn't encourage them to to push boundaries.
> They also soft-censor a lot of games. For example, the Stellar Blade demo originally (it was patched later) had a lot of gore and cleavage. The game that finally released toned down both.
"lack of cleavage" is really not something you can honestly criticize Stellar Blade for, even though some outfits have been changed. They absolutely caved and censored the work from where they started though. I didn't have any issue with the design of Lara for the reboots. She certainly wasn't sexless (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/Lara_Croft_(2...) and was still attractive. I wasn't looking for people's comments on her looks at the time though.
> I mean, if you want to look at things purely objectively, the last of us was a great game. It made tons of money, got amazing reviews, its recommended and loved by gamers, it frequently appears in lists of the best games ever made, it's won literally hundreds of awards, other game developers have cited it as an influence in their own highly acclaimed works, and it spawned (for better or worse) a media franchise that includes books, comics, television, a stage production, a Universal Studios theme part attraction, a sequel, and a handful of remakes/releases.
Ok, I am going to have to break down why this is just bad argumentation:
- Money argument - By that logic, Call of Duty, FIFA or Madden are the best games of all time. When they clearly are not, as they print cash every year for EA and Activision. That would also mean that the Marvel movies were the best movies ever made. You and I know that is BS.
- Popularity argument - This is the classic argumentum ad populum. Something is not good because it is popular. Good things are often popular, but they are not good because they are popular.
- TV/Movie/whatever adaptations – This is simply milking the franchise for all it is worth. That isn't a good thing.
- Creatively inspired for highly acclaimed works. Often there are many highly acclaimed works in the industry that the players don't like. This happens all the time; something will get a good review score, and the player score will be very different. Look at what is being streamed to see what people actually like.
- Award ceremonies for film, TV and music have always been lampooned for being ridiculous and not a good metric of anything the public cares about. This has been done to death in comedy movies, where they openly lampoon these award ceremonies for what they are. Award ceremonies are simply the industry congratulating itself and a networking/party event.
None of these are good arguments. I am talking about gameplay and replay-ability. TLOU has bad replayability.
> It hits every benchmark except your personal feelings about it. Even as a fan I'd agree that it wasn't without flaws, but none of them were enough to make the game a bad one. The slow movement and scavenging were a part of the game's atmosphere that to many were actually beneficial to the game.
These are not personal feelings. I gave direct examples of where the combat/movement was bad or things that were promised were not delivered in the game.
The presentation of it carries the entire game. It is similar to Uncharted. TLOU is simply Uncharted with a skin.
Contrast that with Spider-Man 1&2, where I skip all the cutscenes for the most part (as the acting and script are terrible); the gameplay is amazing.
Pity I can't skip the cutscenes (consistently) in the Miles Morales standalone DLC/game. The plot and dialogue in that game are dire.
> I, and countless others, have replayed the game and didn't have that issue. It's kind of like going back to movie or book. Some people don't see the point in that either. It's not the best game for replay value. but there are some alternate game options provided and collectables if you missed any in the first run. Players can also experiment with with different weapons/upgrades/tactics. I suspect that most people who go back, go back for the story.
So one of my criticisms was replay-ability. You admit it is a problem. The reason the replayability is bad is because the gameplay is bad.
> Sure, old God of War games. The nudity in those games have been a source of controversy and it's been dialed back. Not that it had any impact on the actual rating thanks to tons of violence but prudish Americans are fine with killing for some reason while drawing the line at boobs. There's no doubt that there will be people who won't or can't play games with a lot of nudity. Personally, I think America should grow up and get over the weird sex hangups, but Corporate America is full of cowards who only care about the bottom line and that doesn't encourage them to to push boundaries.
No, it hasn't been dialled back. It has been removed entirely. The violence has also been dialled back. This was done at the request, I suspect, of Sony. Sony censors almost every games on PlayStation.
> "lack of cleavage" is really not something you can honestly criticize Stellar Blade for, even though some outfits have been changed. They absolutely caved and censored the work from where they started though
They literally dialled it back at the request of Sony.
You didn't read what I said. I am talking about how she is treated in the game by the other characters, not that she looks good. I specifically said she looks great.
.png?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=index&utm_content=original){kind=link}
I understand it is a contrarian take. That doesn't mean that it is without merit. I also find it tiresome when people just claim everything is subjective when it really isn't.
The game play is bad. Joel's movement is slow, like too slow. You can't take certain enemies down without certain weapons. The scavenging aspect becomes a chore.
The buddy system they demoed originally was downgraded heavily from the original E3 demo, which was probably 20 years ago now. They took Uncharted, slowed it down and layered a depressing story on top which people think is deep.
The game is boring to play once you know the story. The presentation is excellent, masks this. It does not change the fact that the gameplay is at best "ok". It has virtually no replayability, to the point where I was dreading having to play the next section, as I knew it was a total chore.
There are plenty of problems that I can point to that are not subjective.
> As for original mechanics there's very little out there, but that was true even in the 2000s to the mid-2010s (which would include both uncharted, and the last of us). Most games are just building off of what's been done before. You can find clever twists on old mechanics or rare combinations of them, but it's very hard to find something really different. When you do, it's hit or miss on them being worthwhile, but sometimes the novelty helps make up for the shortcomings.
I am talking about the fact that they didn't even bother changing it. IIRC, in the Farcry games, you can essentially poison/confuse enemies via arrows or something. This exists in a bunch of games.
Ghosts of Tshushima has the exact same mechanic. They didn't even bother dressing it up differently. The game is fun when you are taking out the camps. However, there is the whole Assassin's Creed gameplay collect-a-thon.
A lot of the games are carbon-copy clones of one another, and the only thing that is different is the setting.
> Upgrade systems are supposed to provide progression. It rewards you for your progress in the game with fun abilities. It also helps keep gameplay fresh over the 25/40/60/120+ hours you play by giving you a steady stream of exciting new abilities/weapons to try out. There's often a new game+ option that lets you play the game again with all the best abilities from the start. Upgrade systems are generally a good thing! Sometimes things can go wrong though, for example one of the many problems with Marvel's Spider-Man 2 was starting your character out far too weak compared to how he was at end of the first game and the upgrades you eventually got weren't great either.
I know what it's supposed to do. The games are long because they are padding with bullshit. Why do I want to write haikus in an action game? It's not even a mini game, FFS. They really shouldn't be. It becomes a chore. I've got hundreds of hours in Hell Divers, yet it isn't because I can fire up the game for 30 minutes or all Saturday evening.
How it is implemented often sucks. I am supposed to believe at the start of Ghosts of Tshushima, Jin, who is a trained samurai, can barely fight. The old GoW games at least de-powered you via the plot device, and all the core game mechanics still worked. Why do I have to have a cut scene (which you have to play through but is still really a cut scene) to stab a Mongol in the back?
How about I start awesome and become even more awesome? Or make it make sense that I am weak and incorporate it into the gameplay itself.
> Speaking as a somewhat older gamer, if you really want variety in gameplay I'd recommend trying to branch out to new genres, indie titles, and lower budget PC games. The AAA games with huge budgets can tell a great story with amazing visuals and satisfying gameplay but they aren't going to take a lot of risks because of the amount of money on the line. That might also be why they can come off as PG-13, they want a wide audience.
I am not talking about what I like/don't like. My entire critique is around the problems with the Last of Us and Triple-A games, as you specifically mentioned. I play different games these days and just picked up Ghost of Tsushima because it was on sale and I heard it was good.
As for PG-13, the old God of War games managed to garner a wide audience while being R rated. The argument doesn't make sense.
They also soft-censor a lot of games. For example, the Stellar Blade demo originally (it was patched later) had a lot of gore and cleavage. The game that finally released toned down both.
The new Tomb Raider games (not so new now), Lara is completely sexless. You have this gorgeous athletic woman, and nobody finds her attractive or even comments on it?