This is still an on-going topic? Lol

Story's certainly good: it's very well executed, Joel and Ellie's relationship is great, production values are high, and features one of the best openings I've ever seen. On the other hand, I hated the time skips, a major plot hole, and a death that felt somewhat cheap.

Yeah, this was my first thought about complaints about the gameplay and AI. They must be playing on normal mode or less.

Playing on harder modes limits your abilities and resources, but it doesn't do jack shit to the AI except make them hit you harder.

Also, people talking about the game being two years old forget it's now packed in with every PS4 and that console sells more than either of the other two, and apparently sells to a lot of people who did not own a PS3 last gen. So it will continue to be a new experience for many people.

edit, the DLC Grounded difficulty might have had some actual AI changes, maybe not. I wouldn't know, I was long done with the game by the time it came out. But I played half on Normal, found it boring so beat it on Hard, then got about halfway through again on Survivor or whatever the last difficulty was and was bored again and noticed no AI changes at all except how hard they hit.

Downplaying a flagship game from another camp is nothing new. Lol. We all know which company is doing well and whose future is dim. Have fun. Its really immature attempt to downplay others.

Joel's character develops a lot in the final hours of the game. I will admit that the plot is pretty standard fare between the opening and the final chapter but several of the games you listed had rather pedestrian plots as well (*cough* Arkham *cough*). I remember spending days analyzing and dissecting Silent Hill 2's plot and pouring over every detail of the original Metal Gear Solid but Arkham Asylum, really? Also, what was so mind blowing about Red Dead Redemption, was it the events that occurred in the last hour? I'm not trying to be combative but half of the games you listed can't hold a candle to The Last of Us, the other half are indeed in the same ballpark but nothing would render The Last of Us's characters as anything less than stellar. Honestly, Joel is one of only half a dozen well developed characters I have ever encountered in a video game. I have played thousands of games and very, very few characters had an impact on me the way Joel did. You really should finish the game before forming an opinion on it because the climax and resolution are easily the best parts of the plot and Joel's actions in the final chapter are... somewhat unique for a video game protagonist, I'll leave it at that.

Last time i checked,  both PS3 and PS4 versions have a same metacritic score.

Also, a game doesnt have to be perfect to get a perfect score, otherwise why bother having a score system for anything anyways?

? Why do you get 100% in school exams?
A perfect score can only be achieved if something is perfect. (objectively not subjectively)

A score system is used to determine the quality a product. It makes sense. It does not make sense the way it is used NOW because the scores are arbitrary numbers without meaning that just fool people into thinking a game is something it actually is not.

A game does not need to offer everything in the world to be perfect tho.
Zelda does not need to have 128 player online modes. Gran Turismo does not need to have items like Mario Kart. But as soon as developer decide to implement something like the before mentioned Items they should make sure to implement this without flaws otherwhise their product is not worthy of getting a perfect score for their game.  A game should be judged on what it is supposed to be. Fluctuating framerate is not desired its a byproduct of a flaw.

If TLoU would have slightly worse graphics with constant 30 fps without a single drop it would be closer to perfect than the PS3 version is now. Mario Kart8 can also never get a perfect score because you have that 60 60 60 60 59 60 60 60 59fps problem. It has minor impact on the controls of the game but a minor impact is still an impact therefore it could never be a 10/10 game (wont be one anyway because of the half assed battlemode)


TBH I would be for an INDIVIDUAL SCORE that judges the game on its own  "what does it try and how well does it execute what it tries?" and a COMPARISON SCORE. That puts the thing into a ranking if you want and comapres it to games of the same type/genre. And a third one that puts it into a GENERAL RANKING for all types of games no matter the genre. (the last one is basically what it is today and is completely inaccurate) And while we are at it we should also seperate multiplayer and singleplayer scores. People that dont care about the singleplayer campaing therefore have better understanding if a game is for them or not and vice versa.

We should include score inflation too. A 1999 9/10 game would probably be a 12/10 game today.

We need a new scale /10 /100 is nonsense because the meaning changed yet the original and new meanings get thrown into the same mix and we have nonsense like metacritic that make no sense.

Is the AI really that bad though? I never had any problems with it. No game is gonna have perfect AI... Tell me a game and I'll show you the AI fucking up in it.