Jimquisition: Jimquisition Awards 2013 - The Last of Us
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm not anywhere near as big a fan of TLoU as some, but I do think you're being quite unfair to it. These examples don't count as scripted events - except maybe the deer hunt - because you only experience them through player agency. That is, you don't wander around all the empty houses unless you choose to enter them. You don't find the notes telling Ish's story unless you explore and find them. This kind of thing is the very opposite of a scripted event - instead of taking player control away in order to present a story, they hide bits of story all around and trust the player to uncover it themselves.Goliath100 said:
Yes The Last of Us does have scripted events, and it does have lots of cutscenes which are completely non-interactive. But on top of that, there's a lot of narrative in there that is only found through the player's curiosity and desire to explore.
Now while the stealth mechanics weren't as extensive or smooth to control as Metal Gear, the terrain traversal wasn't as flowing as Uncharted, the combat wasn't as tight as Gears of War, I would argue that all these things are deliberate designs that actually serve this game well. Take the stealth, for example: yes the mechanics are a bit clunky, but this is not a game where you play a nanomachine enhanced super-soldier; you are (most of the time) Joel - some middle aged dude trying to stay alive. There's definitely an argument that this game's systems being a little rough around the edges are a good example of mechanics as metaphor; especially when you consider the tight, smooth controls of Naughty Dog's other major franchise last gen: Uncharted.
The levels are big and allow the player to approach problems in multiple ways. There is a sensibly implemented crafting and upgrade system that gives you plenty of options and allows for some genuine creativity. OK, so it doesn't allow for the kind of freedom that Deus Ex does, but this is a linear stealth/action/survival game. Not all of it's mechanics are great, but there is greatness IN those mechanics when everything comes together just right. To put it down as a 'movie where all the game bits are rubbish' is doing it a massive disservice. The gameplay may not have been quite to your taste, but take a step back and you must surely appreciate it is a finely crafted and well-considered work, even if you ignore the cutscenes and take it on game design alone.
By the definitions YOU where coping: cinematic experience=cutscenes. "Cinematic Experience" is just a marketing term, it means nothing. There is no better evidence then the fact that you fail at saying anything with meaning when just asked what it means.Aardvaarkman said:
Is the meaningful storytelling the letters/notes or finding them?Britpoint said:
And... if you take the anti-derivative of the derivative you get the original equation but with a C added to it instead of another constant that may or may not have existed in said equation! It all makes sense now!Smurf McSmurfington said:
Also, you can calculate the volume of the space between two lines that are approaching the same asymptote towards the same positive or negative infinity from opposite sides... Surely God is mocking us. MOCKING US I tell you!
In a crazy world like this, it's a good thing we have Jim. Maybe we should thank someone... perhaps? You know, for him being around for our aid.
No, it was not. That's what you have inferred from the definitions I gave. I gave a fairly thorough explanation about how cinematic elements apply outside of cut scenes. What about that do you disagree with?Goliath100 said:
Saying that "cinematic" just means cut scenes is pretty ridiculous.
No, it's not. It has plenty of meaning. I've also rarely seen it used in the marketing of games, it tends to be used more by critics.
What did I say that lacked meaning? Have you ever even studied cinema? Cinema has a rich language that has evolved over the years. The language of cinema is now frequently used in games. How does that concept not have any meaning?
Why are you seemingly unable to argue my points, and just dismiss my argument, rather than actually responding to what I wrote? I answered all of your questions, yet you still haven't answered my one question: what's so bad about cut scenes?
They're not an exception. They're very good games that are linear and have scripted outcomes. As a matter of fact, so was Resident Evil 4. What was the player arc in those games..? Wanting to see it through to the end because you like the gameplay, characters, story, and setting.Goliath100 said:
And there are tons more games like it out there. Like Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Metal Gear Solid, God of War, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Okami, etc. All terrific games with cutscenes that are linear and have a set outcome.
well THAT was the point... I'm not sure what it exactly means (probably the stylised aesthetics that directed narrative presents that have evolved from movies) but a lot of people value it highly. However, you seem to be incapable of reading past that.Goliath100 said:
AS I SAID that was NOT what made The Last of Us a great game. As I further explained ( and as Jim describes ).. that may be a boon for the game but without the very important gameplay elements discussed it would feel hollow and commonplace. The creative approach to combat and the general variety of options presented to the player create a very distinctive tone and texture to the game, additionally, the density of the spaces that awards players willing to explore, are all components that speak very highly of it's design, so much that the gameplay itself creates narrative beyond the literal narration.
I mean no offence, but I seriously think that we might have a bit of a language gap here, since your writing and grammar are really hard to follow and you seem to be struggling to understand some of the concepts a few of us are presenting.
Also, I'd like to ask you what game you feel has done a good job at this, I find it hard to understand exactly what is "good" in your perspective.
The problem is that all those games are, by now, old. Resident Evil 4 (which is the close to tLoU) was released in 2005, that is almost 9 years ago. Do not tell me that a game in 2013 should be judged by the same standards as a game from 2005.Casual Shinji said:
Couldn't agree more. It's almost heartbreaking that for all the praise that is laid upon The Last Of Us, very little of it talks about how brilliant Gustavo Santaolalla's pieces were.Casual Shinji said:
Anyway, can't argue with this choice, Jim, although it leaves very little room for Rayman Legends. And Saints Row IV. And Remember Me. And Metal Gear Rising. And The Wonderful 101. And Payday 2. =P
[sub]Man, this is more difficult than I thought. And people say it's not been a good year for gaming! [/sub]
Both. The content of the notes progresses the narrative as well, but they aren't just found willy nilly, there is gameplay associated with it. For example, you might find a note in a barricaded room. The note tells you why the room was barricaded, but before you find the note you have to overcome the obstacle of a door you can't open, perhaps by boosting Ellie up to a hard to reach spot so she can get through and open the door.Goliath100 said:
This is an example of the narrative creating a puzzle and therefore context for the game mechanics. The actual content of the note simply fleshes it out.
And how is the puzzle a part of the overall narrative? To be clear: I'm asking for gameplay/mechanics informing narrative, not the other way around.Britpoint said:
I feel like you are being unbelievably vague in your request. Can you perhaps provide a couple of examples of games that in your view do what you are asking for really well (and explain why they do it well), so that I have a valid point of comparison?Goliath100 said:
Yeesh, there's no need to be so confrontational about this. It's fine that you don't like the game, but is it really necessary to keep attacking people who did like it?Goliath100 said:
People are allowed to have different opinions, and shouldn't be interrogated every time they say something that isn't to your liking.
There's still several good choices for tomorrow.... Saints Row 4, The Stanley Parable, and A Link Between Worlds....
(All of which I would easily put above Ridiculous Fishing btw)
(All of which I would easily put above Ridiculous Fishing btw)
Oh, come on, he was clearly being hyperbolic. Or do you not get things like context and tone? Although I do agree that most of what he says shouldn't be taken seriously. After all, it's just a comedy video about games. there's not a lot about games that should be taken too seriously. Another hint: we're using a site called "the Escapist."bringer of illumination said:
What does age have to do with it? We're talking about linear games, which according to you are bad because of cutscenes and scripted events. When there are plenty of linear games that are fantastic, precisely because they're linear and thus present you with a focused experience.Goliath100 said:
Because none are arguing that that Iron Man 2's(one of the worst games of the 7th gen) graphics good compared to Super Mario 64, or the first Tomb Raider. You are ignoring 9 years of development of interactive storytelling.Casual Shinji said:
Cinematic experiences in games does not necessarily mean scripted events, though considering a game is only a compilation of scripts any event can technically be considered a scripted one.Goliath100 said:
The term "cinematic experience" was originally used to compliment a game that offered cinematic quality i.e the quality one would experience in cinema. Try to remember a time where the experience of a game was a lot more static with rudimentary animations and limited or non-existent voice acting (unless it was an FMV game). Among that standard, games popped up that had characters animate fluidly and were played by competent voice actors. At first this was almost exclusively tied to pre-animated or pre-rendered sequences.
It's taken for granted these days since the standard of games has pushed forward so far and "cinematic" applies to many titles. However there are still games that outdo the standard.
What you need to understand is that "Cinematic" does not mean pre-determined. A round of Battlefield 3 on a full server can have a cinematic quality to it, unless players start dicking about. A fire fight across a street section between 2 groups of infantry getting up turned by the introduction of heavy ordinance like a Tank or an attack chopper can make a sequence feel immensely cinematic, but lacking the pre-determination that you seem to think cinematic means.
You see it's not the direction of a person that makes something feel cinematic (though in cinema it is the director who ties everything together to make something work) it's the interaction between visuals, audio, motion and (mostly in film) camera.
There is more to TLoUs exploration then just the notes. Stashes have their own stories, the environment sshows the ruinage of mankind but also the reclamation of the land by nature (life goes on)... throughout the game, despite never leaving the here and now outside of the opening sequence, we are shown a story that stretches 20 years, from the beginning of a nightmare to the world TLoU has become. Catching a group of enemies unaware will usually get some sense of these characters lives, often carrying a sympathetic element. Stumbling upon an infestation has it's own set of tells and stories. The world tells us about what has happened, it tells us about the nature of things in this ruins of man and more importantly it tells us what Joel has faced in that time and all that Ellie has ever known.Goliath100 said:
What makes you think that a game of 2013 is automatically better then a game of 1990? Bigger budgets? No, if anything the budgets of games has stifled quality and innovation, not enhanced it. Larger studios? I think the old adage is "too many cooks spoil the broth". Better Tech? Certainly this makes a difference, but ultimately the tech are just tools for manipulation. A few hundred years ago to do a painting you need to pluck the hairs off of animal directly to create your brush, mix your own paint from scratch and still create works of art that are revered to this day as exemplary. Just because paintbrushes can be made from plastic fibers instead of horse tail and paint bases are manufactured for ease of use, does not automatically make modern paintings superior.Goliath100 said:
A lot of modern engineering still uses principles established decades, if not centuries ago.
I just don't see how age matters...
When did age become a disqualifier for greatness? A game that was great in 2005 can still be great in 2013. On average it isn't, but exceptions do exist. If something exemplified what games could do years ago, why shouldn't we hold modern games to that standard, at least until another game pushes the boat out even further? Has any game managed to outdo what Mario did for platforming over 2, nearly 3, decades ago? Heck, modern Mario seems to struggle under its own lineages shadow, let alone all the competitors that ape its formula. It's been refined of course, but it hasn't been improved. Mario of nearly 30 years ago is still basis for platformers today, no matter how much you remix it or splice genres together.
If you think standards are just a linear progression from one generation to the next, then you are incredibly naive. Improvements do happen over time, but things that buck trends or start their own come incredibly infrequently. Sometimes the creators themselves don't know what works, which is why so very often sequels feel alien to the game they are meant to be sequential to.
Standards that are set by the way of excellence are not easily outdone. You should probably stop taking that fact for granted.
I will have to go with that one as well. Personally if I had my way The Last Of Us would not end up on anyone's game of the year list. The story was amazingly engrossing but the gameplay was so damn linear, restrictive, and mechanical in an open world "ATMOSPHERE" that I just could not compel myself to finish it by any stretch of the imagination.Bittersteel said:
If I'm guessing Jim ... Saints Row 4 will be next.
Didn't he really like it?
Oh well, onto this episode.
I don't like The Last of Us, I mean damn it did look good like all Naughty Dog games. It is just that I didn't like the characters much, the story was okay ... I can admit that, but the gameplay was something that I found boring in a short while.
...
[sub][sub]This is why I prefer their Jak and Daxter series.[/sub][/sub]
But you know what, I can see why many vote it to be GotY, I'm not going to say "UGH, IT SUCKS, WHY DID YOU LIKE IT". I respect other people's opinions and that includes Jim. Sure I would go on a rant and list points why I think it is bad, but this is surely the wrong thread to do it in.
I'll still raise my glass to Naughty Dog though, I just hope they will return to their roots one day.
Didn't he really like it?
Oh well, onto this episode.
I don't like The Last of Us, I mean damn it did look good like all Naughty Dog games. It is just that I didn't like the characters much, the story was okay ... I can admit that, but the gameplay was something that I found boring in a short while.
...
[sub][sub]This is why I prefer their Jak and Daxter series.[/sub][/sub]
But you know what, I can see why many vote it to be GotY, I'm not going to say "UGH, IT SUCKS, WHY DID YOU LIKE IT". I respect other people's opinions and that includes Jim. Sure I would go on a rant and list points why I think it is bad, but this is surely the wrong thread to do it in.
I'll still raise my glass to Naughty Dog though, I just hope they will return to their roots one day.