Quantcast
I hate the last of us.

Forums - Sony Discussion - I hate the last of us.

KLAMarine said:

I recall TotalBiscuit hating the controls to the game too.

Totalbiscuit hates everything unless it's not with a mouse and keyboard lol.



Around the Network
riderz13371 said:
KLAMarine said:

I recall TotalBiscuit hating the controls to the game too.

Totalbiscuit hates everything unless it's not with a mouse and keyboard lol.

I gotta agree with him to an extent: it's hard going back to the stick after using a mouse to aim.



So you've beaten a game you hate twice, and you're over halfway through your third... odd. That's at least thirty hours if you've been rushing it. You know why he can't run all the time? A fifty year old can't just run forever. You press R1, and he runs for a while. I've never had any issues with it, and I've never heard of anyone else having what you're describing. Obviously that clicker wasn't dead...
I've never heard of anyone having the issues you have in this game. Maybe you're just not very good at the game.



Ka-pi96 said:
jetforcejiminy said:
RCTjunkie said:
It's pretty overhyped based on the 3-4 hours I've played. The gameplay itself is pretty solid, but the story isn't nearly as awesome or engaging or emotional as everyone else seems to say. I wanna go back and finish it for the sake of finishing it, but my thoughts aren't the most positive at this point. Glad someone else thinks so.

b or c movie pretending to be a video game imo, miyamoto was right. it's embarrassing the way the enthusiast press has slobbered all over this mess. and it's a mess even on a technical level. the ai is shit, for example. the gameplay is claustrophobically limited. the whole point of games, and virtual worlds more broadly, is to create freedom of movement that one cannot possibly have in the real world. the last of us chooses instead to hobble you far beyond the demands of gravity. it is a chore to play thru.

That's a pretty narrow view on what games should be. I think it's good to have a variety of different kind of games. If you don't then fine, no need to say they are going against the 'whole point of games' though.

let's not do this whole "dude" routine where everything is just, you know, your opinion, man. a "game" implies that it is a thing, governed by a set of rules, that's meant to be played, and playing a game almost always requires skill and coordination on the part of the player... play seems to be inherently linked to the whole concept of "game." i am simply saying there is not much playing that goes on in the last of us, just as there's very little playing that goes on in something like gone home (which i dislike even more, if it's possible).

speaking about a game like halo, which is incredibly easy at the normal difficulty and has regenerating health and all that, i still can respect it as an overall package because the gunplay is so satisfyingly precise, the mechanics are so polished, etc. etc. these are not qualities the last of us shares. precision, challenge, freedom... none of these are qualities it possesses in anywhere near decent quantities. it's basically an interactive movie, and i could forgive that if the movie were a decent one, but it's a cliché-ridden mess that, were it released as a movie (as seems likely to happen), would never be taken seriously.

and, just to clarify, this isn't just a problem i have with the genre... compare the now decade old resident evil 4 to the last of us and... well, there's just no comparison. it's not even good in the context of its genre.



jetforcejiminy said:

let's not do this whole "dude" routine where everything is just, you know, your opinion, man. a "game" implies that it is a thing, governed by a set of rules, that's meant to be played, and playing a game almost always requires skill and coordination on the part of the player... play seems to be inherently linked to the whole concept of "game." i am simply saying there is not much playing that goes on in the last of us, just as there's very little playing that goes on in something like gone home (which i dislike even more, if it's possible).

speaking about a game like halo, which is incredibly easy at the normal difficulty and has regenerating health and all that, i still can respect it as an overall package because the gunplay is so satisfyingly precise, the mechanics are so polished, etc. etc. these are not qualities the last of us shares. precision, challenge, freedom... none of these are qualities it possesses in anywhere near decent quantities. it's basically an interactive movie, and i could forgive that if the movie were a decent one, but it's a cliché-ridden mess that, were it released as a movie (as seems likely to happen), would never be taken seriously.

and, just to clarify, this isn't just a problem i have with the genre... compare the now decade old resident evil 4 to the last of us and... well, there's just no comparison. it's not even good in the context of its genre.

So basically you are saying 'I don't like it therefore it's not a game!'

Seems there is a LOT of people who disagree with you though...



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Around the Network
jetforcejiminy said:

let's not do this whole "dude" routine where everything is just, you know, your opinion, man. a "game" implies that it is a thing, governed by a set of rules, that's meant to be played, and playing a game almost always requires skill and coordination on the part of the player... play seems to be inherently linked to the whole concept of "game." i am simply saying there is not much playing that goes on in the last of us, just as there's very little playing that goes on in something like gone home (which i dislike even more, if it's possible).

speaking about a game like halo, which is incredibly easy at the normal difficulty and has regenerating health and all that, i still can respect it as an overall package because the gunplay is so satisfyingly precise, the mechanics are so polished, etc. etc. these are not qualities the last of us shares. precision, challenge, freedom... none of these are qualities it possesses in anywhere near decent quantities. it's basically an interactive movie, and i could forgive that if the movie were a decent one, but it's a cliché-ridden mess that, were it released as a movie (as seems likely to happen), would never be taken seriously.

and, just to clarify, this isn't just a problem i have with the genre... compare the now decade old resident evil 4 to the last of us and... well, there's just no comparison. it's not even good in the context of its genre.

 

Why Resident Evil 4? Resident Evil 5 is superior in every way to RE4.



jetforcejiminy said:

Let's not do this whole "dude" routine where everything is just, you know, your opinion, man. a "game" implies that it is a thing, governed by a set of rules, that's meant to be played, and playing a game almost always requires skill and coordination on the part of the player... play seems to be inherently linked to the whole concept of "game." i am simply saying there is not much playing that goes on in the last of us, just as there's very little playing that goes on in something like gone home (which i dislike even more, if it's possible).

speaking about a game like halo, which is incredibly easy at the normal difficulty and has regenerating health and all that, i still can respect it as an overall package because the gunplay is so satisfyingly precise, the mechanics are so polished, etc. etc. these are not qualities the last of us shares. precision, challenge, freedom... none of these are qualities it possesses in anywhere near decent quantities. it's basically an interactive movie, and i could forgive that if the movie were a decent one, but it's a cliché-ridden mess that, were it released as a movie (as seems likely to happen), would never be taken seriously.

and, just to clarify, this isn't just a problem i have with the genre... compare the now decade old resident evil 4 to the last of us and... well, there's just no comparison. it's not even good in the context of its genre.

"There is not much playing that goes on in the last of us."

What?  

I don't think there's any way you played the game if you think it doesn't have rules or requires skill, etc.  

Also I disagree with the term cliche.  I don't believe in the phrase.  It's subjective.  People use it so often that it's a cliche in and of itself.  



Ka-pi96 said:
jetforcejiminy said:

let's not do this whole "dude" routine where everything is just, you know, your opinion, man. a "game" implies that it is a thing, governed by a set of rules, that's meant to be played, and playing a game almost always requires skill and coordination on the part of the player... play seems to be inherently linked to the whole concept of "game." i am simply saying there is not much playing that goes on in the last of us, just as there's very little playing that goes on in something like gone home (which i dislike even more, if it's possible).

speaking about a game like halo, which is incredibly easy at the normal difficulty and has regenerating health and all that, i still can respect it as an overall package because the gunplay is so satisfyingly precise, the mechanics are so polished, etc. etc. these are not qualities the last of us shares. precision, challenge, freedom... none of these are qualities it possesses in anywhere near decent quantities. it's basically an interactive movie, and i could forgive that if the movie were a decent one, but it's a cliché-ridden mess that, were it released as a movie (as seems likely to happen), would never be taken seriously.

and, just to clarify, this isn't just a problem i have with the genre... compare the now decade old resident evil 4 to the last of us and... well, there's just no comparison. it's not even good in the context of its genre.

So basically you are saying 'I don't like it therefore it's not a game!'

Seems there is a LOT of people who disagree with you though...

ah, the old bandwagon argument--accuse me of not making a reasoned argument (which i did, defining the characteristics of a game, which you're free to dispute) and then appeal to the popularity of something as a confirmation of its quality. angry birds and candy crush must be the very definition of quality games, if we're defining it that way. i mean, they leave the last of us in the dust.



ok not for you, play something else



Context sensitive running speed is more cinematic.

Seriously though I thought the game was brilliant. The first cinematic game I've played that actually felt like it struck to correct balance of story and gameplay.