By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Stupid reasons to hate The Last of Us *Spoilers*

Tagged games:

riderz13371 said:

What I personally dislike in the Last of Us multi is the lack of variety in both weapons and map. There is also very little weapon customization. I think the only thing you can add is a silencer. I might do a Last of Us review for the unbiased reviews thing and I'm going to go into full detail for the multi player (and single player ofc). Just want to unlock everything in multi before doing so.


I already reviewed it ;) 




       

Around the Network
JayWood2010 said:
riderz13371 said:

What I personally dislike in the Last of Us multi is the lack of variety in both weapons and map. There is also very little weapon customization. I think the only thing you can add is a silencer. I might do a Last of Us review for the unbiased reviews thing and I'm going to go into full detail for the multi player (and single player ofc). Just want to unlock everything in multi before doing so.


I already reviewed it ;) 

Yeah I read that review it was great but I was banned when I read it so I couldn't comment lol. Am I not allowed to do a review if another reviewer has already done the same game?



Jay520 said:
JayWood2010 said:


Disagree.  As a big multiplayer gamer myself the problems with The Last of Us in multiplayer does not surface from slow gameplay.  Especially when you can run straight through bullets for the broken melee system.  So no.  Gears of War is a much better approach to it.  You have the ability for different playstyles whether it be slow or fast.  Most of the problems with TloU comes from weak weapons, with a few OP including molothovs, shotty, smoke shiv combo, broken melee system, and armor that makes weapons even more useless.  The maps are also piss poor quality with very little strategic placements.  


Define "run through bullets". The only way you could run through bullets is if you are already close to someone and attack them before they could get over 2-3 shots off. Otherwise, you would be killed trying to rush someone.

It takes 2 shots from the arrow/rifle to down someone (one headshot). About 4-5 shots from the semi-auto rifle. And about 2 bursts (I think) from that short-range burst weapon (forgot what it's called. No one uses it). That does not seem weak to me. 

What's broken about the melee?

I agree that the armor should be removed, but that's my only problem from a gameplay standpoint. 


2-3 shots is too much for a bow and sniper. Most of the time 3 due to armor.  Though sniper can be 1-2 shots to the head.  Once again the piss poor maps alters the sniper to be mostly close-mid range other than 2 maps (snow map and the damn.  Not sure of the names)

pistol and any other weapon takes 4-8 shots depending on armor non-armor.  Ridculous.   Since the game ends up being mostly close to mid-range combat (once again from the horrible map design) just run through the first 2 shots and melee and hope you have more health ( or if you have some op melee weapon). Also making the shotty way to powerful since it is the only reliable weapon in the game.

There is almost no strategy in the game other than sneak and get up close to the enemies.  Good multiplayer games allows for options.  Melee should never be the first option either seeing as bullets>fist.




       

riderz13371 said:
JayWood2010 said:
riderz13371 said:

What I personally dislike in the Last of Us multi is the lack of variety in both weapons and map. There is also very little weapon customization. I think the only thing you can add is a silencer. I might do a Last of Us review for the unbiased reviews thing and I'm going to go into full detail for the multi player (and single player ofc). Just want to unlock everything in multi before doing so.


I already reviewed it ;) 

Yeah I read that review it was great but I was banned when I read it so I couldn't comment lol. Am I not allowed to do a review if another reviewer has already done the same game?

We try not to do that.  we have accidentally did that once after we got rid of that (bioshock infinite).  




       

JayWood2010 said:


2-3 shots is too much for a bow and sniper. Most of the time 3 due to armor.  Though sniper can be 1-2 shots to the head.  Once again the piss poor maps alters the sniper to be mostly close-mid range other than 2 maps (snow map and the damn.  Not sure of the names)

pistol and any other weapon takes 4-8 shots depending on armor non-armor.  Ridculous.   Since the game ends up being mostly close to mid-range combat (once again from the horrible map design) just run through the first 2 shots and melee and hope you have more health ( or if you have some op melee weapon). Also making the shotty way to powerful since it is the only reliable weapon in the game.

There is almost no strategy in the game other than sneak and get up close to the enemies.  Good multiplayer games allows for options.  Melee should never be the first option either seeing as bullets>fist.


Thats funny. I always thought 2-3 shots was too little for the bow. When the bow first hits you, it's silent so you have no idea where to run. Then all it takes is one more shot and you're dead (or 2 more if you have armor). 

As for maps that allow sniping. I've managed to be an effective sniper on all the maps (my main weapon). It is true that there aren't many locations where you can aim very far, but the snipers advantage in accuracy and power makes it highly effective even at mid-range (especially with a silenced sniper). And if you are good with it, you can take out an enemy with one shot (2 if they have an helmet) before they even realize you are there. So the sniper is definitely effective.

The shotty is just like in all games. It's deadly at close range, but useless anywhere else. 

The strategy in the game is easy. It's teamwork and flanking. The team that stays together and flanks better wins. With that said, melee actually becomes ineffective because if you try to rush someone, then chances are you will be killed by that person's teammates. As for the other weapons (including the pistols), they are all useful if you get yourself in a good position against your enemy by flanking them, since they would have no where to run while you empty bullets in their side.



Around the Network
Jay520 said:


Thats funny. I always thought 2-3 shots was too little for the bow. When the bow first hits you, it's silent so you have no idea where to run. Then all it takes is one more shot and you're dead (or 2 more if you have armor). 

As for maps that allow sniping. I've managed to be an effective sniper on all the maps (my main weapon). It is true that there aren't many locations where you can aim very far, but the snipers advantage in accuracy and power makes it highly effective even at mid-range (especially with a silenced sniper). And if you are good with it, you can take out an enemy with one shot (2 if they have an helmet) before they even realize you are there. So the sniper is definitely effective.

The shotty is just like in all games. It's deadly at close range, but useless anywhere else. 

The strategy in the game is easy. It's teamwork and flanking. The team that stays together and flanks better wins. With that said, melee actually becomes ineffective because if you try to rush someone, then chances are you will be killed by that person's teammates. As for the other weapons (including the pistols), they are all useful if you get yourself in a good position against your enemy by flanking them, since they would have no where to run while you empty bullets in their side.

I get it, you like it, but i highly doubt anybody will be buying this game for multiplayer.  I have already explained to you what I meant so there is no need in going further with this.  For team work games, the only game that is popular that I know of that gets away without teamwork is Call of Duty.  Halo, Gears, killzone, ghost recon, Counterstike, rainbow six,and even Battlefield requires team work to effectively win.  Gears especially (also a good player is widely different in a new player just from the movement).  Team work has been popular for years so i wouldnt blame the slow place team work on this game.




       

JayWood2010 said:
Jay520 said:
JayWood2010 said:

And for the multiplayer gamers that doesnt like single player (there is plenty of them) will not enjoy the game that much. While it is ok, it is not great either.


It depends on the type of multiplayer games they enjoy. If they are used to fast-paced twitch shooters, then they won't like this. But if they enjoy slower, thoughtful games with a heavy focus on teamwork & strategy over dexterity, then they will enjoy this.


Disagree.  As a big multiplayer gamer myself the problems with The Last of Us in multiplayer does not surface from slow gameplay.  Especially when you can run straight through bullets for the broken melee system.  So no.  Gears of War is a much better approach to it.  You have the ability for different playstyles whether it be slow or fast.  Most of the problems with TloU comes from weak weapons, with a few OP including molothovs, shotty, smoke shiv combo, broken melee system, and armor that makes weapons even more useless.  The maps are also piss poor quality with very little strategic placements.  

In a nutshell, you barely played the multiplayer portion of TLoU.



Hynad said:
JayWood2010 said:
Jay520 said:
JayWood2010 said:

And for the multiplayer gamers that doesnt like single player (there is plenty of them) will not enjoy the game that much. While it is ok, it is not great either.


It depends on the type of multiplayer games they enjoy. If they are used to fast-paced twitch shooters, then they won't like this. But if they enjoy slower, thoughtful games with a heavy focus on teamwork & strategy over dexterity, then they will enjoy this.


Disagree.  As a big multiplayer gamer myself the problems with The Last of Us in multiplayer does not surface from slow gameplay.  Especially when you can run straight through bullets for the broken melee system.  So no.  Gears of War is a much better approach to it.  You have the ability for different playstyles whether it be slow or fast.  Most of the problems with TloU comes from weak weapons, with a few OP including molothovs, shotty, smoke shiv combo, broken melee system, and armor that makes weapons even more useless.  The maps are also piss poor quality with very little strategic placements.  

In a nutshell, you barely played the multiplayer portion of TLoU.

Wrong.




       

riderz13371 said:
JayWood2010 said:
The game really is not perfect. One of my favorite games but it does have flaws including your partners are practically invisible to the enemies. There is also glitches in the game that will force you to restart to the last checkpoint and much of the story is predictable. The multiplayer is meh so im not going to talk about that but my point is it isnt perfect. Yes it is one of the best games I have played personally but it has flaws like any other game.

The reason your companions are invisibile to enemies is because when you are in stealth, Naughty Dog didn't want your AI companions to reveal your position. They made it so that if you are undetected by the enemy, your companion is also even if they are literally right in front of them or bump into them. It would be EXTREMELY annoying to have your position revealed even when it wasn't your fault. Also @bold, I never experienced this and I've played the game three times. I did have that glitch in the beginning where it didn't save though =/. Lost like 3 hours progress.


I had a couple, once I got stuck behind a bush and couldnt get out (partly my fault for overzealous exploring for goodies)

 

ONce at the part when you go in the hotel, Ellie glitched out. Her dialogue was all off, and she was saying weird stuff like "dont drop me" even though when she said it I hadnt got to the point of ferrying her across the water part on the pallet, and she stopped following me. I managed to entice her to follow and got her across with the pallet, then she just stood there and wouldnt put the board over the gap for me to get to the otherside with her.



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

Porcupine_I said:

Since the game is practically perfect and there is no real reason to hate it, unless you have some deeply rooted desire to put it down, i thought lets make this thread for these kind of people to enjoy.

- Joel is an idiot, he wears a broken watch throughout the game, even after someone has specifically mentioned it to him, he even looks at it from time to time.

- There is no possibility to comunicate with the infected and humans in meaningful way to resolve conflicts in a peaceful way. A terrible oversight by the developers.

- The homosexual charackter is completely unrealistic, he should wear some colorful clothes, speak in a gay voice and shove his sexual orientation into everyones face not later then 20 seconds after meeting him.

 

what are your reasons to hate the game?

 

I have to admit that when I read your first point I thought your post was serious! Then I had my fun.