Ok, story was good; gameplay was repetitive... but seriously:
"They’re fungus zombies. Did anyone think this wasn’t ridiculous?"
There's absolutely nothing ridiculous about that. In fact, I'm not gonna even bother explaining because there's a video concerning just this topic.
Ok, story was good; gameplay was repetitive... but seriously:
Both of those are fair scores. I can get behind an 8 for both games. It's a matter of opinion. I think a 6 is too low for both. I personally loved Last of Us, I would give it a higher score, but 8 is fair.
I'll credit to Tom about the Last of Us/Infinte comparison. One thing about Infinite's ending was that it was all concept, while The Last of Us was all heart. That's why I liked Last of Us' story more. Infinite's was just a mindfuck with plot holes.
I doubt Deadpool will win GOTY man. Most publications said the gameplay is repetitive and mediocre, but it's a very funny game.
The thing is, the Last of Us didn't have subpar gameplay. To you and Tom Chick it did, but for the majority of gamers/reviewers, the gameplay was awesome. That's the difference. To the majority of gamers, Deadpool had mediocre gameplay.
I'm on my third playthrough of the Last of Us, if I hated the gameplay I wouldn't go back to it. It doesn't feel repetitive at all. To me, shooters/hack and slash games feel repetitive. It doesn't feel repetitive because I have to take out the enemies in a variety of ways. Sometimes I won't have bullets, so I'll throw a brick and wack em with a bat, or I'll throw a molotov, bomb. Other times I'll sneak and shiv them in the neck. Sometimes I'll get in a shoot out, or fist fight. It doesn't feel repetitive. Bioshock infinite felt more repetitive to me.
I thought the Stealth was pretty damn good in The Last of Us. Better than most games. I'd say it was better than MGS4's, and better than Splinter Cell Conviction's. It was a survival game, so they didn't give you gadgets. I liked having to scavenge items, crafting and figuring out a way to take out humans/infected when my ammo/health was low.
See this is what i am talking about. If i compare bioshock infinite with all the fps i played, it could easilly get 6.5. But apparently reviewers compare with they have played and with what is outhere right now.
So yeah compared to fps the last few years, no way its gonna get a 6.5, but fps have degraded to "Call of honor" ripoffs
I trully dont get how deadpool was apparently repettive and had mediocre combat but bioshock infintie did not, not to mention borderlands or the first assasin creed. Yet far cry 2 was bashed for that. It seems they like to have selective memory.
In any case i bet gta V will come out and get more 10/10 than the last of us further proving that the reviews are paid or the so called "Critics" are fucking retarded.
Urgent anouncement everyone, mathematicians try to come up with a number that is lower than 11 but higher than 10 so the retarded reviewers can rate games properly.
I urge you to look at the past and tell me, just how many games got perfect scores? Hardly any, it was usually 9.4-9.8. Yet because the last of us caused emotional bias, everyone gives it 10. Yet they dare to call themselfs reviewers while the oldschool reviewers look at them in disgust. But hey they got money in their pockets, so who cares what those old hipsters think.
Wow! Excellent critique of this HIGHLY OVERRATED game.
I found myself with the exact same complaints...and just like Farcry 3, wanting more story and LESS GRIND...especially since the grinding gets old as hell really fast.
By the time I got us out of Pittsburg, I was hooked on the story, but just so sick of the core gameplay. Just wishing for a better GAME.
Finally beat it...agitated that to get to the scraps of the story and character, I had to play (crawl) through that bland mess of hallway shanking.
I wouldn't be surprised if for GTAIV, Rockstar paid reviewers off. I didn't see that game as a 10/10 at all. A ton of people think that game is overrated. GTAV did look pretty good, but we'll see. They all feel the same to me.
As far as The Last of Us, if I was to take into account the minor glitches I encountered, it would probably get a 9.3 in my book. It's not perfect, because there are flaws as in glitches and bugs. A lot of people enjoyed the experience so much that they ignored the minor flaws.
This is, hand's down, one of the most pretentious and poorly formulated reviews I have ever read. It's clear you were terrible at the game, which obviously frustrated you, leading to a low score.
So now a game's merit should depend on the reviewer's gaming ability? Maybe someone who had a tough time and wonder why 'I don't just drop the difficulty down to easy already' should avoid reviewing games. Or play them on Easy.
This game was incredible. Your review is objectively terrible in multiple ways. But hey, at least the controversy got your awful website some hits, right?
I would like to argue about repetitive gameplay by saying that no more variety was necessary... the enemy types were "realistic", as in they were explainable, for example, how Bloater got in such state.
Human enemies could have had some more variety though, such as Flamethrower-dudes after you discover the Flamethrower or so.
Mind sharing with everyone how gameplay could have improved?
a) If people have played it and reviewers have voted it as 9-10/10, it's pretty obvious this review will get flamed as it's the review that gave it the worst rating.
b) I mean that when you go to review site, like IGN, there is the review score on top-right. Under it, is User Score. And under User Score, you can vote it yourself.
That is not found here, now is it?
"No am saying there are np life losers who get excited and emotionaly attached because there is a girl in the game rather for the actual gameplay." - I liked both Joel and Ellie, but Ellie more. Does that make me a np life loser? "there is a girl in the game rather for the actual gameplay" - Also see: The Walking Dead (by Telltale)
I referred to HL2 because it's widely-regarded as one of the best games. No, I did not refer to it for "mirroring" TLoU. Also I don't like TLoU specifically for 'girls', but story, characters and their development, graphics, and fun gameplay... ...saying "fun gameplay" will make you rage, won't it.
"Sure lets ignore how mediocre the graphics are, lets ignore how glitchy the game is, lets ignore the floaty shootng mechanics, the subpar stealth, the bad ai and the repettive campaign that drags on." -
1) They're not mediocre, they represent one of the greatest graphics available for 3rd-person games in PS3.
2) Game isn't glitchy for everyone. I haven't had any major game-breaking glitches at all, for instance.
3) Floaty shooting mechanics? What do you mean?
4) Subpar stealth?... ...uh, no. I heard a Metal Gear Solid-veteran say the stealth was okay.
5) Bad AI. AI is mediocre at parts, I admit. But combat and Friendly AI are alright. Before you try to come and say "friendly ai is never seen by enemies D: D:" it is for a reason, not a glitch. People like you would bawl about how it makes stealthing impossible then.
6) Repetitive campaign? Nope. Every linear game campaign is repetitive if you call TLoU repetitive - kill bad guys, move, kill bad guys, move.
"Next time a reviewer bashes gunplay in a game or stealth sections ill scream SO DID LAST OF US 10/10. Next tme they bash repetition and bugs SO DID LAST OF US 10/10." - Um, gunplay was good.
1) Killzone 3 looket better and i think so did uncharted 3.
2)It is glitchy though
3) The uncharted jumpy recoil animations do not connect with the crosshair that loses accuracy when moving.
4) Yeah pretty much. Why? is mgs the best stealth game? No not really Its less reallistic than splinter cell or thief.
5)Yeah running up to them during stealth is not bad at all.
6) Admitedly less repettive than bioshock infinite.
I thought the gameplay was great. Maybe the game isn't for everyone? Because I loved the gameplay and I can't get enough it. I find survivor playthroughs the best. It's genuinely scary, tense and it requires a lot of thought/planning to get through combat sections.
My opinion differs slightly, but you're right in what you said about the other deviant scores. I think that this game is a 9/10 or a 9.5/10, based on the superior graphics, long and intriguing storyling for campaign, and outstanding dialogue, but you can see some animation inperfections and once I even saw an instant death glitch. But even though some review sites claim to give scores on mostly factual things in the game, opinions on those facts differ greatly. However, I believe an 8/10 is more of a decent/great score when you look at the review curve when it comes to mainstream console games on the best consoles.
1) Perhaps somewhat. But The Last of Us is set in post-apocalyptic world, thus there isn't required to have razor-sharp textures for things that are supposed to go rusty and wear out in the timeline of 20 years.
2) Not for all. Uncharted could be glitchy too for someone. So can be Skyrim. As well as GTA. Bloody hell even Pong can be glitchy.
3) Mmh. Didn't even pay attention to such, thus can not be that bad. And yes I have played through the game 5 times, thus I know what the mechanics are.
4) Why is it less realistic? Is this just some attempt to bash whatever I had for example, again?
5) Naughty Dog could make Friendly AI visible. But then you would rage how you're seen because of running AI. This is much less anger-inducing way of stealthing, dude.
6) "Hi, I am Dakan45, and I would like everything to be like CoD! It would be sooo glorious!" - Then why does BioShock Infinite have better scores (user and reviews alike) than CoD?
The story is pretty good, especially the Joan/Ellie relationship building, there's some strong character development going on with this game, and unlike the reviewer, I thought the fungus thing was a cool and different concept for zombies, at least it's not your usual creepy virus thing.
But the gameplay itself fails to impress me that much, it's polished, it works perfectly fine and it's good to play, but I don't think it's much different than the other survival games that came out recently.
I would give it a 7/10, it's a good-but-not-great game, but an amazing experience overall.
6) Nope, i am actualyl furious on how much bioshock infinite is codified.
What you mean why it has higher users scores? That is somethign that i cant understand either.
Certainly, here's a few.
The combat is rigid and confined, with typically only one way to proceed through (out) the "Encounter" areas. Because of the confined nature of the fighting, MOBBING is really the monster enemies only, inevitable strategy of attack. They bunch up in bottlenecks, and surround the player for easy kills. The human enemies aren't much better.
In fact, most enemies can be broken down into two categories: stationary and mobile, offering an extremely simple strategy for confrontations.
As an example, in FARCRY 3, the 'confined' or 'mission' encounters felt more natural with room to move and choose tactics, implementing the same EXACT tools as "TLoU", including shealth kills, guns, explosives, and arrows.
Story progression and character development, in game, was strictly limited to creeping towards a set location: the hospital, the capital building, the radio tower, etc. It all felt very formulaic! You had a sprinkling of conversations and "Press Triangle" moments of interactivity. Otherwise you were scavenging dirty rooms and killing dudes. Not a lot of heart until you get to a cutscene.
And that's my biggest gripes.
I have a full review and more in-depth critiques at:
I would recommend people save the $60 and must watch a good "Let's Play!". You won't miss anything.
Hm. Good points. Though I personally didn't feel TLoU to be truly incomplete gameplay-wise, to be honest. Enemy encounters could have been more randomized though, perhaps not in which area they're in, but in the ways they are placed.
I have played Far Cry 3, and it can be slightly different because of it's open-world nature. But I won't really say anything.
All of the stationary enemies were in the same spots every playthrough, and while it doesn't really bother me, I simply noted it. I didn't pay gameplay that much attention, because the story was that great, and enemy encounters were well placed.
For example, going to a specific place didn't feel repetitive, because it had different things to do. Like in the section you attack the Sniper, you can snipe yourself. Or during the walking times, you can explore things to discover shiv doors or such.
"scavenging dirty rooms and killing dudes" - To be honest though, that happens in Far Cry 3 too, which lacked the dialogue and Triangle-things.
The middle score there, dear. I didn't use this site, because that does not exist in here.
No WHY it has higher cores, although seem to miss that completly, so lets forget that argument and go back to the horrible ai that bumps through enemies all the time.