Forums - Gaming Discussion - Watch Out for The Last of US 2 Ultra Massive story and ending Video leaked on Internet by former ND employee on Internet. Don't trust anything when it come TLOU2 words and letter on Internet

Tagged games:

COKTOE said:
DeusXmachina said:

I haven't seen any praise for it's gameplay to be honest. That doesn't mean it's bad but it's just okay. Unlike it's story gameplay didn't actually try anything new. It was a standard cover shooter, some stealth and a bit of crafting which pretty must describes most AAA games these times.

Again, gameplay wasn't bad. It was just kind of generic.

Well, that's at least debatable and based on my recollection of the game from when I played it 6 years ago, I wouldn't argue that it was bringing anything new to the table. But that TLOU doesn't get praised for it's gameplay, by critics or fans? Less so. Just for the record, it wasn't my favourite, but I thought it was above average gameplay wise, and a great game overall.

Exactly. Above average gameplay, which was the point he was trying to make.

Feel free to go check the Final Fantasy XIII metacritic page, and the first mention of gameplay from a critic was: "...and the battle system strikes an elegant balance between strategy and fast-paced action." A couple reviews down, another critic starts with: "Square Enix has brought some RPG elements to the forefront, while putting some away in the back. This might offend some gamers, but with a mix of tactics, a deep battle system and action-filled battles Final Fantasy XIII will entice plenty of players."
The first user review on the page: "...entertaining battle system, and DIFFICULTY. Every role is vital, and strategies are key for some battles."

While you're technically correct you could go to an aggregate site and find critics or fans praising the gameplay, I don't know what you're trying to add by being that pedantic, especially when here you are now basically agreeing with the general sentiment; The Last of Us isn't a game people remember for it's gameplay, because it's not that great.



Around the Network
Shaunodon said:
COKTOE said:

Well, that's at least debatable and based on my recollection of the game from when I played it 6 years ago, I wouldn't argue that it was bringing anything new to the table. But that TLOU doesn't get praised for it's gameplay, by critics or fans? Less so. Just for the record, it wasn't my favourite, but I thought it was above average gameplay wise, and a great game overall.

Exactly. Above average gameplay, which was the point he was trying to make.

Feel free to go check the Final Fantasy XIII metacritic page, and the first mention of gameplay from a critic was: "...and the battle system strikes an elegant balance between strategy and fast-paced action." A couple reviews down, another critic starts with: "Square Enix has brought some RPG elements to the forefront, while putting some away in the back. This might offend some gamers, but with a mix of tactics, a deep battle system and action-filled battles Final Fantasy XIII will entice plenty of players."
The first user review on the page: "...entertaining battle system, and DIFFICULTY. Every role is vital, and strategies are key for some battles."

While you're technically correct you could go to an aggregate site and find critics or fans praising the gameplay, I don't know what you're trying to add by being that pedantic, especially when here you are now basically agreeing with the general sentiment; The Last of Us isn't a game people remember for it's gameplay, because it's not that great.

I was originally responding to somebody else, regarding a comment that I feel was dealing in absolute terms that are not representative of reality. My personal take is irrelevant. to And furthermore, DeusXMachina said that the gameplay was "not bad" which is a few degrees removed from "above average" where I come from. Again though, not germame to the topic at hand, which was a post that read:"Well the game gets praised for it's story and not it's gameplay"

- "A masterpiece, that breaks the self imposed barriers of gaming narrative and ensnares the player with intelligent gameplay and brilliant A.I.

"With The Last of Us they have given us a consistent and interesting world that is supported by practically all of its game mechanics. From the rich complex combat system to the sublime sound design, this game immerses the player in one of the most visceral plots in this generation.

- "The Last of Us merges very good gameplay with a peerless story and unequaled production values.

- "It is the studio’s finest game to date, marrying gameplay and fiction better than any of the Uncharted games.

- "With The Last of Us they have given us a consistent and interesting world that is supported by practically all of its game mechanics.

- "Naughty Dog has taken what it’s learnt from crafting the Uncharted franchise and spun that experience into a more down-to-earth, realistic adventure that shines with storytelling excellence, great combat, tense atmosphere and the highest quality in presentation".

Now, those six examples I've given are from the first seven reviews on the PS3 version only. Do you think I could find any more examples of gameplay praise for one of the most acclaimed games of all time? And please refrain from casting aspersions if you're not quite sure what's being discussed.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

COKTOE said:
Shaunodon said:

Exactly. Above average gameplay, which was the point he was trying to make.

Feel free to go check the Final Fantasy XIII metacritic page, and the first mention of gameplay from a critic was: "...and the battle system strikes an elegant balance between strategy and fast-paced action." A couple reviews down, another critic starts with: "Square Enix has brought some RPG elements to the forefront, while putting some away in the back. This might offend some gamers, but with a mix of tactics, a deep battle system and action-filled battles Final Fantasy XIII will entice plenty of players."
The first user review on the page: "...entertaining battle system, and DIFFICULTY. Every role is vital, and strategies are key for some battles."

While you're technically correct you could go to an aggregate site and find critics or fans praising the gameplay, I don't know what you're trying to add by being that pedantic, especially when here you are now basically agreeing with the general sentiment; The Last of Us isn't a game people remember for it's gameplay, because it's not that great.

I was originally responding to somebody else, regarding a comment that I feel was dealing in absolute terms that are not representative of reality. My personal take is irrelevant. to And furthermore, DeusXMachina said that the gameplay was "not bad" which is a few degrees removed from "above average" where I come from. Again though, not germame to the topic at hand, which was a post that read:"Well the game gets praised for it's story and not it's gameplay"

- "A masterpiece, that breaks the self imposed barriers of gaming narrative and ensnares the player with intelligent gameplay and brilliant A.I.

"With The Last of Us they have given us a consistent and interesting world that is supported by practically all of its game mechanics. From the rich complex combat system to the sublime sound design, this game immerses the player in one of the most visceral plots in this generation.

- "The Last of Us merges very good gameplay with a peerless story and unequaled production values.

- "It is the studio’s finest game to date, marrying gameplay and fiction better than any of the Uncharted games.

- "With The Last of Us they have given us a consistent and interesting world that is supported by practically all of its game mechanics.

- "Naughty Dog has taken what it’s learnt from crafting the Uncharted franchise and spun that experience into a more down-to-earth, realistic adventure that shines with storytelling excellence, great combat, tense atmosphere and the highest quality in presentation".

Now, those six examples I've given are from the first seven reviews on the PS3 version only. Do you think I could find any more examples of gameplay praise for one of the most acclaimed games of all time? And please refrain from casting aspersions if you're not quite sure what's being discussed.

"Do you think I could find any more examples of gameplay praise for one of the most acclaimed games of all time?"

Why are you asking me this? Did I ever dispute that? Did I not just pull several examples from another, far-less loved game to make that point?

"DeusXMachina said that the gameplay was "not bad" which is a few degrees removed from "above average" where I come from."

That is reeeeally reaching mate. And as I tried to make clear, whether he was slightly off or not, his point was that the gameplay is not great, which is in line with exactly what you said; and no one (as in general people who play games, a generalisation of the audience, not literally everyone who plays/reviews games) remembers the game because of great gameplay.

Just because you interpreted the short, casual line of "Well the game gets praised for its story and not the gameplay." as 'dealing in ABSOLUTE TERMS that are not representative of reality. My personal take is irrelevant.' (This whole thing is really based on your strong personal take of a short comment.) Doesn't mean he meant it literally has never been praised for it's gameplay.
Look at some of the reviews you decided to share with us. Even when praising the gameplay, they then heap far greater praise on other elements like narrative or production. One of them (I was gonna say a couple, but you actually double-posted one review) even mentions how the gameplay 'supports' the other aspects, meaning it does enough to prop up the parts people actually care about.
So if someone says "praised for its story and not the gameplay", it can refer to the gameplay being more of an afterthought. Just like even though these reviewers are breaking their backs to make TLoU seem like the second coming, you can tell they're basically praising the gameplay more out of obligation to mention it, while saving their greater superlatives for the aspects that matter.

Read between the lines.

Sorry I butt in on your conversation, but I figured he could be left going back-and-forth over a pointless detail (that you could find praise for it's gameplay somewhere), just like you're trying to do to me now.



Shaunodon said:
COKTOE said:

I was originally responding to somebody else, regarding a comment that I feel was dealing in absolute terms that are not representative of reality. My personal take is irrelevant. to And furthermore, DeusXMachina said that the gameplay was "not bad" which is a few degrees removed from "above average" where I come from. Again though, not germame to the topic at hand, which was a post that read:"Well the game gets praised for it's story and not it's gameplay"

- "A masterpiece, that breaks the self imposed barriers of gaming narrative and ensnares the player with intelligent gameplay and brilliant A.I.

"With The Last of Us they have given us a consistent and interesting world that is supported by practically all of its game mechanics. From the rich complex combat system to the sublime sound design, this game immerses the player in one of the most visceral plots in this generation.

- "The Last of Us merges very good gameplay with a peerless story and unequaled production values.

- "It is the studio’s finest game to date, marrying gameplay and fiction better than any of the Uncharted games.

- "With The Last of Us they have given us a consistent and interesting world that is supported by practically all of its game mechanics.

- "Naughty Dog has taken what it’s learnt from crafting the Uncharted franchise and spun that experience into a more down-to-earth, realistic adventure that shines with storytelling excellence, great combat, tense atmosphere and the highest quality in presentation".

Now, those six examples I've given are from the first seven reviews on the PS3 version only. Do you think I could find any more examples of gameplay praise for one of the most acclaimed games of all time? And please refrain from casting aspersions if you're not quite sure what's being discussed.

"Do you think I could find any more examples of gameplay praise for one of the most acclaimed games of all time?"

Why are you asking me this? Did I ever dispute that? Did I not just pull several examples from another, far-less loved game to make that point?

"DeusXMachina said that the gameplay was "not bad" which is a few degrees removed from "above average" where I come from."

That is reeeeally reaching mate. And as I tried to make clear, whether he was slightly off or not, his point was that the gameplay is not great, which is in line with exactly what you said; and no one (as in general people who play games, a generalisation of the audience, not literally everyone who plays/reviews games) remembers the game because of great gameplay.

Just because you interpreted the short, casual line of "Well the game gets praised for its story and not the gameplay." as 'dealing in ABSOLUTE TERMS that are not representative of reality. My personal take is irrelevant.' (This whole thing is really based on your strong personal take of a short comment.) Doesn't mean he meant it literally has never been praised for it's gameplay.
Look at some of the reviews you decided to share with us. Even when praising the gameplay, they then heap far greater praise on other elements like narrative or production. One of them (I was gonna say a couple, but you actually double-posted one review) even mentions how the gameplay 'supports' the other aspects, meaning it does enough to prop up the parts people actually care about.
So if someone says "praised for its story and not the gameplay", it can refer to the gameplay being more of an afterthought. Just like even though these reviewers are breaking their backs to make TLoU seem like the second coming, you can tell they're basically praising the gameplay more out of obligation to mention it, while saving their greater superlatives for the aspects that matter.

Read between the lines.

Sorry I butt in on your conversation, but I figured he could be left going back-and-forth over a pointless detail (that you could find praise for it's gameplay somewhere), just like you're trying to do to me now.

Oh my god. I've never had to deal with such a pointless wall of text in my entire time on the site. Are you wondering about the meaning about what Jrantion said? As if it's written out in hieroglyphics, and then once translated, it needs interpretation due to it's complex nature? "Well the game gets praised for its story and not the gameplay". That this is not accurate is my entire point of contention. And how is what he said not an absolute statement? What the F** are you talking about? There's a very simple tenet to this whole thing, which has been at the forefront of the exchange, on display multiple times, and even highlighted, yet still you persist, and wax philosophic about you know not what. Seriously, I've never resorted to this before, but I won't respond to anything you say on this post. I reject your apology.

Last edited by COKTOE - on 29 April 2020

Chinese food for breakfast

 

dupe. The site has sketchy the last few days. On mobile and PC.

Last edited by COKTOE - on 29 April 2020

Chinese food for breakfast

 

Around the Network
COKTOE said:
Shaunodon said:

"Do you think I could find any more examples of gameplay praise for one of the most acclaimed games of all time?"

Why are you asking me this? Did I ever dispute that? Did I not just pull several examples from another, far-less loved game to make that point?

"DeusXMachina said that the gameplay was "not bad" which is a few degrees removed from "above average" where I come from."

That is reeeeally reaching mate. And as I tried to make clear, whether he was slightly off or not, his point was that the gameplay is not great, which is in line with exactly what you said; and no one (as in general people who play games, a generalisation of the audience, not literally everyone who plays/reviews games) remembers the game because of great gameplay.

Just because you interpreted the short, casual line of "Well the game gets praised for its story and not the gameplay." as 'dealing in ABSOLUTE TERMS that are not representative of reality. My personal take is irrelevant.' (This whole thing is really based on your strong personal take of a short comment.) Doesn't mean he meant it literally has never been praised for it's gameplay.
Look at some of the reviews you decided to share with us. Even when praising the gameplay, they then heap far greater praise on other elements like narrative or production. One of them (I was gonna say a couple, but you actually double-posted one review) even mentions how the gameplay 'supports' the other aspects, meaning it does enough to prop up the parts people actually care about.
So if someone says "praised for its story and not the gameplay", it can refer to the gameplay being more of an afterthought. Just like even though these reviewers are breaking their backs to make TLoU seem like the second coming, you can tell they're basically praising the gameplay more out of obligation to mention it, while saving their greater superlatives for the aspects that matter.

Read between the lines.

Sorry I butt in on your conversation, but I figured he could be left going back-and-forth over a pointless detail (that you could find praise for it's gameplay somewhere), just like you're trying to do to me now.

Oh my god. I've never had to deal with such a pointless wall of text in my entire time on the site. Are you wondering about the meaning about what Jrantion said? As if it's written out in hieroglyphics, and then once translated, it needs interpretation due to it's complex nature? "Well the game gets praised for its story and not the gameplay" That this is not accurate, is my entire point of contention. And how is what he said not an absolute statement? What the F** are you talking about? There's a very simple tenet to this whole thing, which has been at the forefront of the exchange, on display multiple times, and even highlighted, yet still you persist, and wax philosophic about you know not what. Seriously, I've never resorted to this before, but I won't respond to anything you say on this post. I reject your apology.

"such a pointless wall of text"

Your previous post, which going by lines used was actually a bit longer than mine, mostly contained a bunch of quotes from reviews, which I made an intentional effort to avoid by stating you were technically correct from the get-go.
I find it a bit rich you'd say this considering the reason I had to write so much, was to create enough detail for you to understand exactly what I was saying. You've already shown that if things aren't spelt out for you sufficiently, you're just gonna run away with your own assumptions.
Your whole 'point of contention' even started with you saying, "Could you expand on this statement please?" So what do you think all these lines of text for you are? I'm expanding on every statement necessary, to avoid you trying to start the same nonsense with me. (I also know I've spoken on behalf of someone else here. So he's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.)

Honestly, I find so much of what you're saying so strange, that I'm starting to wonder if there's some in-joke I'm not aware of. Like there's some long running prank that you've been playing on this site, and I've suddenly gotten caught in it.

"I won't respond to anything you say on this post."

Ok. I didn't want much part of this anyway, so this is really a load off my mind.



Shaunodon said:
COKTOE said:

Oh my god. I've never had to deal with such a pointless wall of text in my entire time on the site. Are you wondering about the meaning about what Jrantion said? As if it's written out in hieroglyphics, and then once translated, it needs interpretation due to it's complex nature? "Well the game gets praised for its story and not the gameplay" That this is not accurate, is my entire point of contention. And how is what he said not an absolute statement? What the F** are you talking about? There's a very simple tenet to this whole thing, which has been at the forefront of the exchange, on display multiple times, and even highlighted, yet still you persist, and wax philosophic about you know not what. Seriously, I've never resorted to this before, but I won't respond to anything you say on this post. I reject your apology.

"such a pointless wall of text"

Your previous post, which going by lines used was actually a bit longer than mine, mostly contained a bunch of quotes from reviews, which I made an intentional effort to avoid by stating you were technically correct from the get-go.
I find it a bit rich you'd say this considering the reason I had to write so much, was to create enough detail for you to understand exactly what I was saying. You've already shown that if things aren't spelt out for you sufficiently, you're just gonna run away with your own assumptions.
Your whole 'point of contention' even started with you saying, "Could you expand on this statement please?" So what do you think all these lines of text for you are? I'm expanding on every statement necessary, to avoid you trying to start the same nonsense with me. (I also know I've spoken on behalf of someone else here. So he's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.)

Honestly, I find so much of what you're saying so strange, that I'm starting to wonder if there's some in-joke I'm not aware of. Like there's some long running prank that you've been playing on this site, and I've suddenly gotten caught in it.

"I won't respond to anything you say on this post."

Ok. I didn't want much part of this anyway, so this is really a load off my mind.

The only running joke is every every post you've made since your initial response to me. You've already been corrected, so nobody else needs to do that, and you have expanded upon nothing. I can certainly appreciate how this is weighing on your mind, since the most duh-duh obvious, duplo-block concepts still seem to be evading you. I'm glad I could provide some relief for you in not attempting to further explain what's been happening.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

"I won't respond to anything you say on this post." -apparently not an 'absolute statement'.



Xxain said:
JuliusHackebeil said:

Yeah, I think that is one of the points.

Another point is, that diversity is just as important in a game as gameplay and story are. To me, this is wrong on multiple levels.

Diversity, at its most important (not necessarily at its best), is part of the story. When your game (or whatever) is about race, gender, sex, religion, age, ect., you really must have the right, diverse cast. Can't have a game about the struggle through apartheit in South Africa with just an asuan cast. In those cases you have to get diversity right.

What bugs me about Neil is, that he thinks diversity is just as important in games without focus on race, religion, etc. Race is an important issue and if your game is about it, go for it. But if it is not, I cannot see, how a game of only black people is worse than a game with black AND asian people. Race just goes skin deep. If your story is not about it, it should not matter. Is Joel (tlou) a hindu, or a christian? Does not matter. Ellie could have been a boy and/or Joel a Woman and it would have been as great a game.

Honestly, and I don't say this lightly, but everybody who thinks more races in your game (or genders, or other things as trivial as those) makes for a better game, strikes me as somewhat racist.

I think the opposite way. You are infering that unless there is a specific reason to justify it, that diversity should not exist. Why cant there be diversity for diversities sake? I dont agree with diversity being a important part of game, but do I take note of cool enthic characters? Yes I do. Speaking of ethic characters, isn't it strange that Japan is responsible for all the coolest black characters? Thats a damn shame.

Perhaps I was not clear and this is a very complex topic for me but I was not at all trying to infer that there needs to be a specific reason for diversity, or otherwise it should not exist. And maybe our way of thinking about this is not even that different.

Maybe I get it out better this time: A cast that reflects the reality of the setting and context is vital (like a game about apartheit in South Africa with only asians would be broken in my regard). Or a game about the struggle of transsexuals without a trans-person. That would be just silly.

Other than that, diversity is of no importance to me. Thinking that less diversity makes something better, to me, is not okay (like: "I wish there were less asians/homosexuals/etc. in it"). BUT thinking that more diversity makes something better, to me, is just as bad (like: "I wish there were more asians/homosexuals/etc. in it").

It is easy to see, how wanting less diversity is often a bigger problem, since those regards typically (but not always) came from racist individuals.

But wanting more, to me, as I said, is just as much of a problem on an individual basis. Let's be polemic here, just to illustrate a point. In "Family Matters", or "The Cosby Show" the cast was all black. "It would have been better if there were more white character" - to me, that is a racist statement. "Married... with children" was all white. "It would have been better with more black characters" - to me, that is a racist statement. Just as much as to say: "it was so good because it was all white."

Or in another way: diversity has nothing to do with the quality of your product, it is absolutely neutral, unless the setting and context of your product requires a specific set of people.