Polygon is basically ran by a bunch of MS fanboys disguising as game "journalists" their view on anything Sony related is rather slanted on the negative side and their views of MS are quite rosy, it would be funny, only if they did not take themselves so seriously... now 7.5 for a game like TLoU is arsh at best, I think the person may not have understood what was in front of them and they should not be allowed to review anything else than COD or Battlefield titles... On the bright side, their web site looks awesome.
Gamespot is all over the place in therms of coverage and opinions/reviews, depending who reviewed it, an 8 is not just "decent" this is still a really good game, but it has a score that reflect that it may not appeal to everyone, a lot of your own favorite games may fall into this category.
Now I can see why someone would be less pleased by The Last of Us than by Titanfall or some other variation on the millitary/sci-fi shooter type of game, the pace is much slower, every enemy is a potential threat to your life, and your wing mans/squad mates don't generally kill them for you in the single player campaign.... However, it builds tension in every encounters, you need to stop and plan, manage your inventory, it challenges you in a different way than other games do, not just by putting more enemies on the screen (I assume reviewers who did not find it challenging played it only on easy because even normal is demanding for many people) it's not extremely linear, in the sense that a lot of encounters can be played in completely different ways.
Personnally however, I was more than pleased with TLoU, gameplay wise it was tense and challenging, and like A LOT of people I found it good enough to re-play in the last year AND will re-buy it, story alone would not make me re-buy it... if you think that the let's play video gave you an idea of what playing TLoU is, well you must think watching pr0n is the same as being with another human.
The thing is, production value does not hurt gameplay... maybe you should give us examples of great gameplay, we would know what your expectations are... If you go and look around in responses to many articles about TLoU you will find a lot of people who re-played the game many times over in the last year, they still play the MP and like me will re-buy the game... now don't go telling us that there is no depth in how this game can be played, because, again, you have not played it.
Certainly, other "credible" sites gave it perfect or near perfect scores: IGN: 10/10 Joystiq: 5/5 Game Informer: 9.5 Destructoid: 10/10 Eurogamer: 10/10 Kotaku: Yes
Were they all tricked into watching the let's play video with fresh pop-corn? Honestly, I think anything below an 8 is unfair to this game, the idea of reviews is to try to find a partial truth about the quality of a game, otherwise why would a reviewer's opinion have any value? We are interested in their views so that we can predict if this is likely or not that we will like a game, not because they're our friends and we like to know what they think.
And many games that have pretty high production quality get destroyed in the reviews, do you even recall "remember me", so this is not the sole factor, if a game is no fun, most reviewers will let you know.
That guy must have been playing on Easy or something, I mean, the enemies are much more aggressive than in the video when I play.
They also tend to try to flank me, at least the humans rarely just run at me blindly.
If you want a recent game with really bad AI, try the latest Wolfenstein game, I don't understand why few people talk about it, honestly you see enemies stuck in corners, hiding behind destroyed walls, running around like chickens... etc. even I noticed it and I don't generally pay attention to this, unless it's totally broken.
It's an amazing movie with sky high production values....and occasionally it lets you move ladders, pallets over water, climb up on things and slooooooowly sneak around to do the same kill animation. Gameplay was a distant second here to story, which is forgivable due to the story being so good.
This is a prime example of an inarticulate writer going through manopause. This piece of trash review one of the worst I've had the displeasure of skimming over. It's a rant that took you hours to edit and reedit while you masterbated to the thought of going against the grain.
All you wrote is "I don't get the story because I'm easily confused, I suck at adapting to different styles of gameplay, this is really hard because I don't have infinite ammo, and when I die I get respawned like in every other game but I need to write another paragraph so it looks like I put in effort."
Congratulations, You Fail Tom Chick... CarpalTunnel and Arthritis could not come faster for you.
As if the vast majority of people who "loved" this game weren't masturbating to the thought that they were having some ostensibly intellectual and emotionally riveting experience? This review gives credit where credit is due. The game doesn't deserve utmost and absolute praise; it's just not perfect. There are flaws to discuss. It's ridiculous that actually having grounded thoughts and not being consumed by hype when writing a review should even be considered "going against the grain" in the first place. How screwed up is that grain, that nobody can say anything even slightly negative without having terribly debilitating diseases wished on them?
I have to seriously question your opinions as a gamer if you watch Let's Plays of once in a generation games instead of actually playing them. And if you didn't have a PS3, you should've still preserved the experience for the chance the one day play it down the road.
Secondly, you're so wrong on your assessment. Just as wrong as the people who say the same thing about the Metal Gear series. Beyond: Two Souls is more like the game you are describing. A cutscene heavy game with incredibly simple (and boring) gameplay sections. 60% of the LOU is stealth combat/combat, with another 15% exploring and light-puzzling and the last 25% are cutscenes. These numbers are based of finishing the game 3x and I think they are very accurate. If that sounds like a "movie" to you, then just stick to Let's Plays and stick to commenting on Youtube.
Okay but even if that were true, but what about the numerous fanvoted GotY awards that voted for last of us for 2013? I can produce several if you ask me to. It's been widely loved by both reviewers and gamers alike, so you're running out of reasons to undermine is metascore. Bear in mind also that last of us is a console exclusive so for it to win numerous fan voted GOTY awards, it did so with a smaller audience than other games that year.
PS: Can I just remind you that you haven't played the game...? Honestly stfu until you have. I would never be so pompous as to open up a review on a game I haven't played, scroll down to the comments and bag the game as a "non game" or suggest it didn't have "quality gameplay" WHEN I HAD NO EVEN PLAYED IT. You are such a clown for giving such strong opinions with incredibly weak exposure to the game.
I only discovered this site today, and I thought I'd come to TLOU and read the review becuase every one else sings its praises. Once I read the review, this will be the first and last review I will read on this site.
Even though it's refreshing to see that the reviewer hasn't fallen head over heels in love with the game and stayed impartial, well to a certain extent. It seems that the reviewer has decided to pick holes where there aren't really any holes to be picked at. "But the zombies become oddly peripheral, and they’re way too silly. They’re fungus zombies. Did anyone think this wasn’t ridiculous? There is, of course, something fundamentally silly about zombie mythology, but some silliness is sillier than others." Why are fungus zombies funny, they're a mythical being, who is the reviewer to claim that something non-exsistent is silly. It just seems that the reviewer has decided to to be anti TLOU from the outset just to be different from the crowd.
I really enjoyed the uncharted series, just for the sheer excitment all the action in the game gives you. TLOU improves massively on that series, it's not cheesy and the story is much more compelling. I for one was never bored or felt that I could be playing a "better game" whilst watching a cut scene. The story kept me gripped from start to finish, with some moments that made me jump out of my skin. If you're looking for non stop action, uncharted is probably more up your street but if you want something deeper, with an improved action system, TLOU is for you.
Yeah... i must confess that many games Focus way too much in Story... and forget about forging good Gameplay Mechanics.
i found myself going back to my young self while playing Shadow Warrior ( amazing game by the way, please do check it out! is way under-rated! ) a game that focuses on Cinematics to only entertain you with Smart Humor and some over-the-top puns just to keep things fresh bettwen those Satisfying Gameplay parts!
Nintendo had the idea back in the day... but it was Sony that cemented the Story Telling in gaming by removing the Limits of Hardware... and now we just go and play Playable Movies.
I own this game have beat it and played the multiplayer. It's story mode was ok not great. Way too much time is spent on the narrative of the game which sucks for people who didn't find the characters all that interesting or charismatic. There's just way to much chore gameplay to this game and while i don't regret having played this game all the way through. You'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to play through it again. The replay value of this game is about zero. The beginning of this game is especially long tedious and boring. There's just way too much time spent walking around listening to the characters dialogue or watching a cut scene in the first couple hours before you get to any actually fun gameplay. Also once you get to some action the still riddle this game with all sorts of other "down time" moments where you have to listen to these uninteresting characters arguing or talking about other bs that no one cares about to try and give them more "personality" or at least I think that's what they were attempting. However this dialogue is way less interesting than I get from my friends so why would I want to hear it? I'd say this game is only 50% game and the rest is shit that no one with half a brain would enjoy.
The best part of this game was it's multiplayer which actually brought me back to this game over and over. However the multiplayer for as much fun as it is doesn't have any zombie like creatures in it. It's like cod zombies where the campaign and the main multiplayer has nothing to do with zombies but they have a little side game you can play that has zombies. In The Last of Us it's the opposite. The story is all about a zombie apocalypse and the multiplayer has none. Which I found to be incredibly disappointing when there was so much potential for it to have a fun multiplayer zombie game. Much like the story mode of this game though Naughty Dog just isn't innovative enough to do it.
I'm sorry, am I reading a review of The Last of Us or BioShock Infinite?
In contrary to what the review says, the idea of a fungus turning people into zombies is not at the "far end of the silly scale." There are fungi that will inhabit an animal's body, (in the documented cases, insects) and essentially take over their brain, causing them to involuntarily display certain behaviors. Parasites have caused the same thing in certain animals. It's a real thing. Apparently, whoever wrote this article has never read a science book or graduated high school.
At any rate, I don't mind a change of pace when it comes to video games. Not every game has to be the same. Sometimes, it is nice to be able to have a great story that you interact with. It's rookie reviewers, like this person, who fail to understand that. Although not the best game, or a game with the best gameplay per se, it's still a very well-made game that is meant to have a great story in with which you interact, which is exactly what Naughty Dog did. But, if you want to play the same old thing, like BioShock Infinite or Metro, then hang out with the author of the review.
The thing is that the game's purposely made to be ACCESSIBLE. Knowing that the gameplay is somewhat flat tells me it's somewhat "kinder" to a casual gamer such as myself, and that--together with the story and oh god the characters--attracts me to the game, while simultaneously peeving the more discerning and experienced players, so it is admittedly a double edged sword. Here's to hoping for a less turgid gameplay design for the upcoming ND games....
