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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - TLOU:R isn't worth it

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Cross-generation releases are not uncommon. It makes perfect sense for a third party developer to release a title on as many platforms as possible so that their titles can reach the biggest possible audience. But Sony is not a third party developer.

When The Last of Us was marketed as a Playstation 3 exclusive title, people took their word for it. Having the game announced for another platform capable of superior textures, frame-rate and video resolution less than one year after release was not expected by anyone.

Sony started working on the remake immediately after the original was completed, meaning that they deliberately made people buy the inferior version without letting people know that there was a better version in development. All in a successful attempt to make the game sell more copies than it otherwise would have, had they been honest.


Also, fuck GOTY editions.

bolded: there were plenty of people expecting that. It was wished for and rumored pretty much since the games was launched.

Also, am I understanding this right? GTA V is ok because it's multiplat but TLOU isn't because it's an exclusive?



Around the Network
Burek said:

So basically a lose-lose situation, because the same people complaing now would have complained that Sony purposely skipped releasing TLOU on PS3 to screw over 80M users and force a new piece of hardware onto them, all in a cash grab attempt at selling more PS4 consoles...


There was no reason to skip PS3. No one (or at least no reasonable person) would have complained if Sony let people know that a PS4 version was in development.



Puppyroach said:
DonFerrari said:
Puppyroach said:
I think the reason behind all hate, which is unjustified indeed, is because this is a 1st party game with the name "remastered" in it. Had it been a 3rd party release, noone would react. I do think a game needs to be a few years older to justify the term "remastered", but those are just small details. I am quite sure this hate won't affect the sales one bit, just buy the game and enjoy it :).


Anything that works the original master to a different media or retouch the quality is a remaster since it reddo the master... actually all ports are remasters in a way even if they keep everything equal.

Yes, and by that reasoning COD on PS4 and X1 would be called COD:Remastered :).

The terms "Remastered" or "Anniversary" is used to signal a return to an older game where the graphics have been updated significantly (think Halo:Anniversary) or altered in other significant ways. Using it on a year old game, even though you are technically right, send the signal that ii is more of a cashgrab than a fan service. I believe it to be both, just like with every rerelease of a game, but using the words "remastered" hasn´t elped them one bit, especially on such a recent game.

I still find the negative reaction silly, but I can see where the perspecitive of the cashgrabbing has been emphasized when they use the word "remastered".

Not sure about the term remastered since I don't remember seeing it used for games, just HD collection and anniversary edition (altough 1y make a anniversary and we celebrate our kids 1st brithday in fanfare I agree use it for something less 10years is silly). Do you remember a game using remastered in the name? I remember a lot of movies being remastered but they never put remaster in the name, maybe director's cut (as if the old one wasn't cut according to directors instructions)...

But maybe if Sony hadn't used the term it would get less flack... and in the end all sequels are cashgrabs, most games are (or should) be made to be self-contained and when you end it you are satisfied. Then when it sell alot publishers greedly put sequels, rare are the cases you can see a true trilogy is in effect from the conception of the game.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

A203D said:
I thought it was obvious this re-release is aimed at those who didn't play the original version of the game. Theres 8 mil PS4 users, theres bound to be a lot of users who didn't get the game on PS3, or who didn't have a PS3, so from my view its reasonable for those gamers to be the primary audience for this re-release.

It is reasonable for all, except those few that cannot comprehend that and continue to write articles like the one in OP.



Raziel123 said:
Puppyroach said:
Raziel123 said:
Burek said:

Halo 4 was not released in 2013. Two years is long enough for a remaster, 100% longer than in this case.


Any amount of time is enough for a remaster, as long as it has its benefits provided from superior hardware. TLOU could have been released in 2007, doesn't matter to me, it was running on PS3 no matter the date. PS3 = PS3, PS4 = PS4. 360 =360, XB1 = XB1. 2007 or 2013, same thing as long as it's the same original hardware.

Even if they were released, let´s say, on the same day? :)

You mean a PS3 and PS4 version on the same day? Wouldn't that just be a cross gen release?

For example, Forza Horizon 2 is released the same day on 360 and X1, where there are two developer teams, drivatar and weather effects on the X1. Is Forza Horizon 2 then considered to be a remaster because it is an improved version or when does a game go from being a crossgen release to being a remaster? I am not critizising, I just find it fascinating that all of us (me included) have all these informal rules that we apply to games, but rarely reflect on why we have them.



Around the Network
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Burek said:

So basically a lose-lose situation, because the same people complaing now would have complained that Sony purposely skipped releasing TLOU on PS3 to screw over 80M users and force a new piece of hardware onto them, all in a cash grab attempt at selling more PS4 consoles...


There was no reason to skip PS3. No one (or at least no reasonable person) would have complained if Sony let people know that a PS4 version was in development.

Funny thing is, I've yet to see someone that bought the game on PS3 complain about this.



Euphoria14 said:

Tomb Raider and GTA V already got a free pass. Yeah, TR & GTA V got graphical & fps bump in it's defense...

 

... but so does TLOUR.

We haven't seen anything from The Last of Us to show whether it's got anything but a resolution boost and fps bump.  GTA on the other hand has resolution boost, framerate atleast to 30fps, better textures, more species, more people on the streets, and more traffic.  Tomb Raider never got a free pass.   

It's not the fact that The Last of Us is a GotY edition.  If it was on the PS3 with all the extra content I as well as most people bitching about it would have no issue.  Like Tomb Raider before it and the many other ports the PS4 has gotten from titles that are only a year or two old, the PS4 and Xbox One are nothing but ports.  Microsoft though is atleast doing something for their fanbase by getting exclusive titles on the console.  You can use the argument that a lot of people who owned a PS3 haven't played The Last of Us or a lot of people who have a PS4 came from the 360, but what about all the people who do still have their  PS3 or did play The Last of Us.  What about those people who want to see new games and not port after port of older games on their console.  Even if the games are cross gen it's better than a year old port. 

The point is and something Sony had to even publicly defend themselves against which just proves how loud the gaming community has been complaining about this, is the PS4 has got shit worth of games.  A lot of people want to see retail exclusives and the PS4 only has four exclusives from launch until 2015 that you can only play on the PS4.  That's the biggest problem.  If The Last of Us was ported later in the console life when the PS4 actually has a large number exclusives, most people wouldn't care.  It'd only be people hating on the system at that time and using that as fuel.  Just because I'm bashing the PS4 doesn't mean I'm some fanboy who doesn't want to see the console succeed.  Unlike most Sony fanboys who are being so apologetic towards the system, I want to see the system succeed and am tired of Sony's bullshit and lack of management.  The anger doesn't come from just the PS4 though.  It comes from the PS4s pathetic line up and the fact that I'm also a day one Vita owner, a fanbase which Sony constantly shits all over.  Sony's attitude is very complacent and it's a shame all the other Sony fanboys don't see this.  The whole we don't need to do anything for our fans in order to get the sales we deserve attitude is bullshit.  Are they making exclusives?  Yes.  Will there be exclusives next year?  Yes.  Will the PS4 more than likely have more exclusives in the eight gen than any other console?  Yes.  But Sony isn't trying as hard as either of their competitiors and  their fans that are looking into playing more games that they have yet to play are suffering for it.  Microsoft has more than Sony by a small margin, but Nintendo during their first full year on the market had over 10 retail games exclusive to the Wii U whether they were paid for or Nintendo developed.  I like Sony more than Nintendo, but Nintendo deserves all the sales Sony is getting because they're actually trying to give the fans what they want.



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Burek said:

So basically a lose-lose situation, because the same people complaing now would have complained that Sony purposely skipped releasing TLOU on PS3 to screw over 80M users and force a new piece of hardware onto them, all in a cash grab attempt at selling more PS4 consoles...


There was no reason to skip PS3. No one (or at least no reasonable person) would have complained if Sony let people know that a PS4 version was in development.

Just like Rockstar trumpeted the next-gen version all over the media? I was under a strange impression that they actually denied it until the last moment.



DerNebel said:
DonFerrari said:
DerNebel said:

Oh, I've seen the sig of that user.

And if we got something like this, that'd be so freaking awesome:

 


Do you want TLOU2 to be a music game??? To kill all the enemies with the power of your gig?? You can have that with "Rock of the Dead" on PS3 altough not with the same great graphic /jk... Ellie is a strong girl, she would be an stronger character than Lara Croft when Teenager, she have meet true horror in her childhood more than even Lara had.

Of course man, Singstar: Infected Edition, I'd buy that shit a dozen times.

No but seriously, a TLOU game with a grown up Ellie as the protagonist (Even if ND said that the story of Joel/Ellie is done)? I'd be totally down for that.

Add some new enemy types (maybe infected animals/or a new level of infection), weapons, characters and places (maybe, I don't know how, take her to europe somehow ) and I'll be happy.

Well I bet there are several good zombie musics to be sing in the singstar: infected edition.

Well Joel/Ellie story is done, but who says about a game with Joel backstory or Ellie future story? And we know producers can go back in their word if there is money to be earned. But yes, I would preffer teen Ellie and them mature Ellie than Joel (altough it could be really good to see his fall from grace along the game, losing all hope for humanity and himself until he turns in his self-centered and careless persona on TLOU).

Infected animals I'm not to eager to see unless they are chimps, because it would look like all those games and histories that state that for severaaaaaaaaaaaal years the world is like that (like in pokemon were there exist 150 pokemons know to man for like centuries, and bang every two years they discover 100 new ones). A mutation is good, but they need to be carefull not to go to common place. I'm confident they would make it interesting with new venues, weapons, etc... they could be looking for a safe haven elsewhere (just don't make it like Resident Evil movie)... And we haven't saw japanese infected, she could go to tokio.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DerNebel said:

bolded: there were plenty of people expecting that. It was wished for and rumored pretty much since the games was launched.

Also, am I understanding this right? GTA V is ok because it's multiplat but TLOU isn't because it's an exclusive?


Rumors obviously don't count. Anyone can start a rumor, while only Sony can make official announcements.

From what I've heard Rockstar was never hiding the fact that they were willing to make a PS4/XOne version of GTA V.