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

Forums - Sony - The Last of Us - Pax Demo - Proof that it's not scripted

Dgc1808 on 08 September 2012
pitzy272 said:

Slightly off-topic, though still about TLoU (didn't know where to post this)...

Did anyone see this recent interview from Pax regarding TLoU's multiplayer? (skip to around 1:30)
http://www.dualshocknexus.com/2012/09/the-last-of-us-multiplayer-update-pax.html

Anyone else confused and/or frustrated that their answer is still "undecided" regarding what they're doing with the multiplayer?

"WORKING on some ideas"??

"We don't know what direction we're going yet"??

Didn't they give the same answer back at E3 or even before?? First this game was rumored to release this year, then (from what I've gathered) it was expected early-ish 2013; but, how can they flesh out an entire multiplayer experience in a matter of a few months if they don't even know what they're doing yet?

This makes me think TLoU will release later - maybe even significantly - than we thought and hoped; and this is what's frustrating.

Does this strike anyone else as odd?

*sighs*... I hope this means nothing with regard to the release date. Or perhaps a multiplayer patch later?

Seriously, I want this game for the Single-Player experience it's promising. It already has me sold on that. I feel like they're just throwing in multiplayer because they have to when I read stuff like this. I hope this doesn't end up like Spec Ops the line. Brilliant single player experience with tacked on multiplayer that even the devs admit they didn't want. 



4 ≈ One

Around the Network
Jay520 on 08 September 2012
pezus said:
ithis said:
Again the violence. Initially i was hoping that sneaking around would have done it but no. You must shoot a guy in the head from 3 feet.
Aand, at 2:00 one can see that the walking animation still suffers from "bent knee" syndrome.
Other than that it's good. I think this game can really really make you care for Ellie.

Maybe we'll see a third playthrough where he doesn't attack anyone? Possible


I think it's possible. I remember Naughty Dog confirming that you could complete the level without killing anyone. 



o_O.Q on 08 September 2012
JazzB1987 said:
o_O.Q said:
JazzB1987 said:
o_O.Q said:
JazzB1987 said:
 
 
CGI-Quality said:


 


Well If one creates a thread about a specific topic (last of us  scripts)  then one usually thinks replies are related to the topic  correct?

And whats the point in  focusing on the first and last sentence (which can mean anything according to some)   when the rest is clearly  talking about the topic     THE SCRIPTS?   

So what exactly did happen here?

  • First sentence  (not sure if bash of game or on topic.  Hmm  ill take it as bash of game because Im a pessimist maybe?)
  • BLOCK OF TEXT (hmm okay this is clearly on topic  okay)
  • Last sentence (hmm again not sure if bash of game or on topic... Ill take it as bash of game AGAIN and ignore the text in the mid even if the SO in the last sentence shows that it has something to do with the block of text in the mid.)

 

Makes no sense at all. And its the readers fault if something is being misinterpreted.

And whats the point in arguing now that you all already know what was ment? It just looks like people have to find excuses...  This is my last reply because all this is to off-topic imho. And I said what I wanted to say several times now.


I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS GAME AND DON'T UNDERSTAND THE  SCRIPT FUZZ. END OF STORY.  Thank you for reading.

" I NEVER SAID I DONT GET WHY PEOPLE DISCUSS THE GAME. "

well you did below...

"I dont get why people are discussing this even today. its not even that awesome"

 

"I never intended to say I have interest"

yeah exactly... and i never at any point said so... i however inferred that you didn't have any from what you said 

 

"because you find nothing of worth to discuss or be interested in does not mean that applies to others"

"Who are you talking to dude? I have interest in the game.   So why are you saying this? Just as an info?"

i said it because of what you said here... obviously "I dont get why people are discussing this even today. its not even that awesome"

 

"Well it was derived from what your EGO was seeing as an insult or whatever. And I had 1 comment before you replied not several commentS."

i wasn't only reffering to your comments obviously... thinking that is pretty egotistical wouldn't you say?

 

" You clearly didn't comment on what I said but on what YOU wanted to read."

nope as shown above that isn't the case...


Dude grow up... I wanted your strange behavior almost forces me to come back.  I was showing that I have no interest in derailing the thread again  but it seems that its doing it anyway so why should I stop if others keep going on. (sorry mods)

1.

  •  "well you did below..."

"I dont get why people are discussing THIS even today. its not even that awesome"  


The topic is  SCRIPTED OR NOT do you finally get it? That was what the THIS was talking about.
 (Take reading lessons and not so much mind reader lessons will you?  I cannot spot  "GAME"  " LAST OF US"  or any other word that indicates I was talking about the game. I was talking about the topic  END OF STORY. 
If your brain cannot understand this  well  I am sorry. But stop telling me what I said even tho you can CLEARLY see that its not written there but your "brain" made it up. So stop lying dude lol.

-----------------------------------------------

2. "I never intended to say I have interest"

  • "yeah exactly... and i never at any point said so... i however..."


Yeah exactly... and I never at any point said that you said so..........
(this part of my reply has as much value as the part I quoted  NONE. Just adding things that show you are right without any connection to the actual discussion etc is cheap dude.)

     " said so... i however inferred that you didn't have any from what you said"
You just said what I say the whole time YOU INFERRED that it has a meaning even tho it has none. You misinterpreted. Thank god you finally understand.
-------------------------------
 

3.

  • "i said it because of what you said here... obviously" 

You said it because of what you "thought" was there not because of what I wrote OBVIOUSLY you even agreed with me (see 2.) . Thats the point and you can Your ego just did not allow for the fact you made a mistake. Which is normal especially when the whole thing is a conversation/discussion with strangers on the web or in person thank god it thats not the case anymore.

----------------------------

4. "Well it was derived from what your EGO was seeing as an insult or whatever. And I had 1 comment before you replied not several commentS."

  • "i wasn't only reffering to your comments obviously... thinking that is pretty egotistical wouldn't you say?"


Sure it would be egoistical to think so but thats not what happened.  You SAID
here

"what i've written was derived from>>>>> your comments<<<<<<....

"Your comments" with an S  is plural  (comment = singular   comments = plural)  so this is not a case of ME thinking you said something  but a case of me correctly reading what you wrote  its no case of misinterpreting  like you did.

Sure you also said it also derived from what others say  but that doesn't change the fact that use said I had several commentS (with an S). I did not quote the part of you talking about others comments because that is not related to me or my reply.

5.

" You clearly didn't comment on what I said but on what YOU wanted to read."

  • nope as shown above that isn't the case..

 Yup as shown above  all the stuff you said just shows that you are wrong.  Again I say something you misinterpret  I clarify it you keep going on about  how I wrote something (which is clearly not true or was written with invisible fontor whatever) etc.  So can we stop now?
_______

The whole quote shit is a mess (my fault lol)  and the off topic stuff is hilarious etc. but we all had our fun and our 5 minues of boredom management/anger management or whatever. So can we go on now?  This time I will def not come back because your reply in case of you still thinking you are right would just be a troll reply and thats not worth my time etc.

We both agree that we don't agree. Good for you good for me and even better for the thread.





CGI-Quality said:

Perception and reality don't have to be the same thing (in fact, they often times aren't) and you can't expect people to get what you mean if you say one thing and feel another (no mind readers here). What will be replied to is what you do talk about.

On the flip-side, I agree that it's off topic and am happy to oblige.


"Perception and reality don't have to be the same thing"

Thats what I said.

" and you can't expect people to get what you mean if you say one thing and feel another"

Totally true   I expect people to read what is written in front of their eyes not what they think is written there.

"(no mind readers here)"


Some people here act like mind readers

"What will be replied to is what you do talk about."

Too bad that was not the case.

Thanks for your reply. As stated above I will stop replying now. And I hope all of you do the same  for the threads sake.

I will play GuildWars2 now    have a nice weekend everyone.

P.S.  I hope the mods don't resent me for my replies but I will defend against allegations. Especially if I clarified something several times now.

 

up to this point you haven't really written anything that contradicts what i wrote...

all i've said is that this thread is to discuss the game and should you find the thread uninteresting there're other threads you can visit...

all you're saying with your last reply is that you were only talking about a particular aspect of the game...

but regardless its still obviously a discussion on the game...

which as you have confirmed many times you find uninteresting... do you understand how what i said applies to what you said now?

 

"what i've written was derived from>>>>> your comments<<<<<<"

this is the whole thing... "what i've written was derived from your comments and other comments i've seen in this thread"



errorpwns on 08 September 2012
o_O.Q said:
errorpwns said:
o_O.Q said:
pitzy272 said:

Slightly off-topic, though still about TLoU (didn't know where to post this)...

Did anyone see this recent interview from Pax regarding TLoU's multiplayer? (skip to around 1:30)
http://www.dualshocknexus.com/2012/09/the-last-of-us-multiplayer-update-pax.html

Anyone else confused and/or frustrated that their answer is still "undecided" regarding what they're doing with the multiplayer?

"WORKING on some ideas"??

"We don't know what direction we're going yet"??

Didn't they give the same answer back at E3 or even before?? First this game was rumored to release this year, then (from what I've gathered) it was expected early-ish 2013; but, how can they flesh out an entire multiplayer experience in a matter of a few months if they don't even know what they're doing yet?

This makes me think TLoU will release later - maybe even significantly - than we thought and hoped; and this is what's frustrating.

Does this strike anyone else as odd?

yeah this does make it seem like it won't release early 2013

on the positive side ( for some ) it shows at least that at this point they're concentrating most of their resources to making the single player

i suppose that if buliding the mp is too time consuming they may scrap it and just ship the game as a sp experience, although i doubt that as i think i've heard them stating recently that they don't plan to ship future games without mp


I may be alone, but judging by the type of game this is I just don't see the justification for multiplayer.  It'd make a solid single player experience for anyone interested in it and will be worth the money to those people.  Adding multiplayer to a game like TLoU may make the multiplayer seem tacked on and just there for the sake of multiplayer.  Which I'm guessing is why they're having trouble deciding on how to go about it.  SInce Naughty Dog most likely doesn't feel comfortable with having multiplayer just tacked on and want to actually make it intertwine with the game well.

"I just don't see the justification"

what justification is needed? are you talking about the type of game?

 

uncharted started off sp only and had multiplayer not been added with 2 i probably wouldn't have gotten it

the main reason i got 2 was that the mp beta had me hooked, but after i actually got the game i realised that it actually had much better sp than the original imo ( which to me wasn't that spectacular )

 

what does "tacked on" mean in this context?

Tacked on means for the sake of having multiplayer.  I still think TLoU looks like it'd be better as a solely single player experience.  Not every game needs multiplayer.  



o_O.Q on 08 September 2012
errorpwns said:
o_O.Q said:
errorpwns said:
o_O.Q said:
pitzy272 said:

Slightly off-topic, though still about TLoU (didn't know where to post this)...

Did anyone see this recent interview from Pax regarding TLoU's multiplayer? (skip to around 1:30)
http://www.dualshocknexus.com/2012/09/the-last-of-us-multiplayer-update-pax.html

Anyone else confused and/or frustrated that their answer is still "undecided" regarding what they're doing with the multiplayer?

"WORKING on some ideas"??

"We don't know what direction we're going yet"??

Didn't they give the same answer back at E3 or even before?? First this game was rumored to release this year, then (from what I've gathered) it was expected early-ish 2013; but, how can they flesh out an entire multiplayer experience in a matter of a few months if they don't even know what they're doing yet?

This makes me think TLoU will release later - maybe even significantly - than we thought and hoped; and this is what's frustrating.

Does this strike anyone else as odd?

yeah this does make it seem like it won't release early 2013

on the positive side ( for some ) it shows at least that at this point they're concentrating most of their resources to making the single player

i suppose that if buliding the mp is too time consuming they may scrap it and just ship the game as a sp experience, although i doubt that as i think i've heard them stating recently that they don't plan to ship future games without mp


I may be alone, but judging by the type of game this is I just don't see the justification for multiplayer.  It'd make a solid single player experience for anyone interested in it and will be worth the money to those people.  Adding multiplayer to a game like TLoU may make the multiplayer seem tacked on and just there for the sake of multiplayer.  Which I'm guessing is why they're having trouble deciding on how to go about it.  SInce Naughty Dog most likely doesn't feel comfortable with having multiplayer just tacked on and want to actually make it intertwine with the game well.

"I just don't see the justification"

what justification is needed? are you talking about the type of game?

 

uncharted started off sp only and had multiplayer not been added with 2 i probably wouldn't have gotten it

the main reason i got 2 was that the mp beta had me hooked, but after i actually got the game i realised that it actually had much better sp than the original imo ( which to me wasn't that spectacular )

 

what does "tacked on" mean in this context?

Tacked on means for the sake of having multiplayer.  I still think TLoU looks like it'd be better as a solely single player experience.  Not every game needs multiplayer.  


to me multiplayer gives games replayability which is why if added mp modes are good and have depth i'm all for them

i wouldn't still be playing uncharted 2 or 3 if they didn't have mp modes



Around the Network
Jay520 on 08 September 2012
pezus said:
I don't really see how they could make a good multiplayer mode with this game. They should just focus on the single-player experience imo.


It could be like Left 4 Dead co-op, which would be awesome.

errorpwns on 08 September 2012
o_O.Q said:
errorpwns said:
o_O.Q said:
errorpwns said:
o_O.Q said:
pitzy272 said:

Slightly off-topic, though still about TLoU (didn't know where to post this)...

Did anyone see this recent interview from Pax regarding TLoU's multiplayer? (skip to around 1:30)
http://www.dualshocknexus.com/2012/09/the-last-of-us-multiplayer-update-pax.html

Anyone else confused and/or frustrated that their answer is still "undecided" regarding what they're doing with the multiplayer?

"WORKING on some ideas"??

"We don't know what direction we're going yet"??

Didn't they give the same answer back at E3 or even before?? First this game was rumored to release this year, then (from what I've gathered) it was expected early-ish 2013; but, how can they flesh out an entire multiplayer experience in a matter of a few months if they don't even know what they're doing yet?

This makes me think TLoU will release later - maybe even significantly - than we thought and hoped; and this is what's frustrating.

Does this strike anyone else as odd?

yeah this does make it seem like it won't release early 2013

on the positive side ( for some ) it shows at least that at this point they're concentrating most of their resources to making the single player

i suppose that if buliding the mp is too time consuming they may scrap it and just ship the game as a sp experience, although i doubt that as i think i've heard them stating recently that they don't plan to ship future games without mp


I may be alone, but judging by the type of game this is I just don't see the justification for multiplayer.  It'd make a solid single player experience for anyone interested in it and will be worth the money to those people.  Adding multiplayer to a game like TLoU may make the multiplayer seem tacked on and just there for the sake of multiplayer.  Which I'm guessing is why they're having trouble deciding on how to go about it.  SInce Naughty Dog most likely doesn't feel comfortable with having multiplayer just tacked on and want to actually make it intertwine with the game well.

"I just don't see the justification"

what justification is needed? are you talking about the type of game?

 

uncharted started off sp only and had multiplayer not been added with 2 i probably wouldn't have gotten it

the main reason i got 2 was that the mp beta had me hooked, but after i actually got the game i realised that it actually had much better sp than the original imo ( which to me wasn't that spectacular )

 

what does "tacked on" mean in this context?

Tacked on means for the sake of having multiplayer.  I still think TLoU looks like it'd be better as a solely single player experience.  Not every game needs multiplayer.  


to me multiplayer gives games replayability which is why if added mp modes are good and have depth i'm all for them

i wouldn't still be playing uncharted 2 or 3 if they didn't have mp modes

The thing is, TLoU has multiple routes to play.  So there's already replayability in that isn't there?  I just think not every single game needs multiplayer is all.



oldschoolfool on 08 September 2012

I'm on the fence about this game,but it's on my radar.



ethomaz on 09 September 2012

Firstly this thread is about how EPIC and AWESOME is The Last Of Us... some mod changed the title for that "scripted" thing.

 Secondly... EVERY and ALL game is scripted... the entire AI is scripted for ALL games. Any computer program (game included) is scripted. You can put random choices but in the end is a fixed scripted working.

What is the point that the haters are arguing?

Even so The Last of Us is ahead of any other game I've seen in my gamer life... in pc or not.

Face it.



SunofKratos on 09 September 2012

at ethomaz: Finally some true words. I really cant understand how some guys are so blinded that they couldnt see what outstanding is coming with The Last of Us.