The last of us

Perfect scores are like perfect student loans or extremely attractive thai woman: traps.

In other words, no one who wants to hear a genuine opinion about this game would give a shit what any of these reviewers have to say.

>pretending to be a trustworthy reviewer
>giving a game a 10/10

Gamespot barely ever gives a score lower than 5, which implies that they believe most games to be above average.

edit: so far 26 reviewers have given the game a perfect score. Even if all of them were honest opinions I wouldn't believe the game was that good. All that's missing right now as far as I'm concerned is my experience with the thing. I'll add my own little review to the thread as I typically do a few days after release.

Exactly. They probably get paid for the scores so just don't pay attention to them and watch playthroughs after its out.

Naughty Dog

It's more complicated and subtle than that.

Quite interesting and as you said "Slighly more compicated than that."

Also, to clarify my issue with giving games a 10/10, to me a perfect score means a game is one of the best games ever made. Not a goty, not a "must buy this generation," but the best of the best of the best. I'm very skeptical of such scores for modern games, especially for a AAA title that adds an unnecessary multiplayer mode to an otherwise single player experience. This is also considering the trend for big budget games to strive for broad market appeal, which means dumbed-down gameplay mechanics to make the game more casual friendly.

Back in the day, games like Deus Ex, Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment, and System Shock 2 didn't give a shit about casuals and the devs focused on creating a quality experience for a niche audience with barely any hand holding. Nowadays the budgets are bigger and the publishers are too paranoid about investing in a niche title, so the devs have to try to create a quality experience that attempts to please a wider demographic. If a 10/10 game comes out any time soon, it'll likely be from a kickstarter dev or some indie.

What makes multi-player necessary? The way I see it a developer has every right to add anything to the game to give it legs long enough to go as long as they'd like it to. It's not like the multi-player is just a run and gun TPS or FPS just tacked on like Tomb Raider, there is actual thought and a unique nature to The Last of Us "unnecessary". As long as somebody enjoys it, it is as necessary as they deem it to be. After all, what about any video game ever was actually "necessary"?


OT: The level of cynicism in here is way too typical of the internet these days. Naughty Dog has always been a quality developer for such games like Crash Bandicoot and most recently The critically acclaimed Uncharted series. For me when I played Uncharted 2, that game was near perfection for what it was and Naughty Dog was able to replicate that level of quality again with Uncharted 3. For me, as a Playstation owner and lover of the Uncharted series I have a ton of faith. For me there are a couple of things that can sway when I look at a review.
1. The Author
2. The content of the review that I read word for word
If it is a reviewer who's reviews have lined up with my own views on games that I have played in the past I have no problem taking their words into consideration.

That being said, I'm excited for The Last of Us. The last game I played that got a perfect score was Metal Gear Solid 4 and that game is at the very top of my "Favorite games of all time" List.

My problems with it are related to the "broader appeal" shit. I'm not questioning a dev's right to add multiplayer. I go out of my way not to mention this because I assume that it's implicitly understood and I consider it condescending to make explicitly known, but I'll say it to make it absolutely clear: in my opinion, a game which ostensibly focuses on a rich single player experience doesn't add anything of value with multiplayer (there are always some exceptions). For a game like CoD, I think the SP is unnecessary/pointless because the main draw is the MP and the SP is low quality.




HA!



You'd think that if you've only watched the trailer for it and weren't cynical enough to realize it was typical marketing bullshit.



Looks like a standard TPS using The Last of Us' gameplay mechanics. But don't mind me, I'm just some cynic.

To save some time, I feel like our entire conversation just boils down to this statement here.

So? Would you prefer I be more credulous and uncritical?

Indeed, not only will this game that I haven't played be a 10/10 goty epic win (I mean, my expectations should be 11/10 considering how much jizz professional, trustworthy reviewers lost playing it; all aboard the hype train, toot toot), but its multiplayer will be borderline revolutionary and not your typical "bang bang, he dead, me win" tps because Naughty Dog's marketing said so. Of course, contrary evidence is too cynical, so we should assume that a publisher's demands that a game have mass appeal will have no impact on the gameplay, which will no doubt have depth and complexity, with respect for player agency and minimal hand holding.

Naivete can only save one from disappointment for so long.

Also, the negrep was completely accidental. I'll restore it tomorrow.

Shit A.I. is shit.

I'm actually looking forward to this game. I wanna see the interesting plot, But that's pretty much it. I probably won't play the multi-player.

I don't know how much longer this will be available, but you could actually watch the game being played here. Go to the user's profile for the rest. Naturally, expect spoilers.

The gameplay looks brutal and visceral like in the demo, but the animation transitions are still horrible. At 60:42 you can clearly see the fucker sliding to punch the player. For some stupid reason Naughty Dog adopted cowadoody's screen jelly.

Having watched the first video, I can't help but agree with the guy I quoted. The AI is outrageously retarded, and it's more noticeable when it comes to your companions. At 69:10, the chick runs behind a bunch of containers for cover, then GTFOs back to the player. After the player goes behind the exact same containers, you could see a guy standing there, looking right at you, in the midst of taking a mental dump. In Naughty Dog's attempts to keep companions from being a burden, they've created figments of the protagonist's imagination. ND also promised that gunshots would have more impact, but all I'm seeing is uncharted all over again. There's no health regen. My god, the impact is so great that health doesn't come back! How will this generation's gamers cope? The game does, however, get a lot more interesting when the fungal brigade gets involved.

Considering what I've seen, all the perfect scores now seem even more ludicrous.

Haw haw, that .gif gets me everytime. Great job, Naughty Dog!

Welp, that's one game down the drain with its hype train running off a bridge and into an erupting volcano.

Just beat it. took me just under 14 and aa half hours on normal.
FUCKING AMAZING.

Admittedly the A.I wasn't the best in the world, but there's a strong reason why so many people gave it a 10. You are missing the point here by a huge margin.

Just beat the game as well. Watching the credits now.

I only had one encounter with a derpy ai. Guard was just running into a wall which made it easy to strangle him to death.


So what did everyone think of the ending?

Lucky you.




I'll find out what I think soon enough. Just got my copy, which happened to be the last copy in the store, so I'd say the game's name was pretty apt in that regard har har 10/10 etc.