The Last of Us - Why can't I...?

[verdant monkai]

Let's try this again..

That's impossible, since all characters in the game except for Joel are functionally invisible to enemies. Until Joel gets caught

Ok now you are making sense

Uhhh, no. There are some places where some and/or mass murder might be the easiest (or rarely only) way through.

and if by some you mean like three or four then yep you are right. But the game still features a lot of murder everything to proceed, and in a survival game that is down right dumb. I actively tried to avoid fights a lot of the time but when I got to the end of the area via stealth, the rage inducing little pest that called itself Ellie would cheerfully inform me "there are too many of them", ***** if we hurry we won't have to worry about them now hold onto this plank and learn how to swim you little turd.

 

[Guy from the 80's]

Bro, bro, bro... Bro. A thousand years ago they could freely mine. Not such a realistic prospect when half of the world outside of crumbling encampments is overun by super deadly spores and zombified fungi-men. So bro, where all that sulfur and saltpetre gonna be coming from, bro?

Saltpetre is not that hard to make breh, no need to worry about saltpetre. When it comes to sulphur, well breh they manufactured that as early as the 1700's. If they could do it then, why not now?

And how are they gonna transport it from areas rich in one component but not another. Communication between relatively small and nearby settlements carries enough risk for a niche and illegal collective of smugglers/runners to be employed.

The answer for that can be found in the book....the same that explains how magnets work.

Smoke on dem apples brosina.

You are saying that modern man cant do something man did 1000 years ago. you also ignore the fact that the feds bought 1.6 billion rounds and thats 1.6 billion rounds on top of the god knows how many billion trillion rounds already out there.

Breh you dissapoint.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

bit of background: I'm not that good at the "sneaky-aroundy" games. That being said, I was told that, for the most part, you could blast your way through.

Found the problem. I liked the Last of Us because the stealth and strategy elements were well done (among other things). I would have been bored to tears shooting my way through this game. If you can't shoot past human enemies you should at least use stealth and strategy to get past the infected. I liked seeing how many I could kill with just a brick. Then you'd have your ammo for the shooting segments

 

[Azure23]

Never had problems with ammo or enemies not dropping enough.

But the aiming is terrible. Even fully upgraded the sway is pretty over the top.

For headshots, I believe it has to be a shot to the brain for it to count. A shot to the jaw won't kill them in one hit.

The game was hyped to high heaven though. It isn't bad, but I didn't find it as good as a majority of people made it out to be.

Your first point is just patently untrue, completely unupgraded the sway is very noticable, enough that it can mess up your headshot if you can't compensate in time, sure. But even the first level of the steadiness upgrade mitigates the sway so much that you can be almost completely accurate in the majority of the combat areas (most of which aren't too large, with a few notable exceptions). The second upgrade pratically eliminates weapon sway altogether, hell I'd even ignore it most of the time just because shiv master is so much more useful and it's not that much of an improvement over the first upgrade. Now there could have been a balance patch or something which nerfed that upgrade, but the last time I played was when left behind came out. Anyway that was my experience, the reticule was rock steady with both upgrades, it blooms when you're moving but that's just par the course for shooters.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

If you WERE playing a run of the mill man-shoot and these were your shooting controls, the first thing you'd do is say "Controls are shit, 3/10". I'm not sure why they get a pass for rubbish shooting on the grounds that it is some kind of subtle story mechanic

Because, SPOILER, The Last of Us is not shooting game. If you want a third person shooting gallery with a good story, I'd recommend Red Dead Redemption. The Last of Us is about surviving and the best way to survive a gun fight is to kill your enemies before they kill you. And the best way to do that is to take on enemies one at a time without the others knowing. And you have to do that in a way that saves resources because the cities and towns you've been running through have been picked clean over the last 20 years. When you are forced into all an all out gun fight, they're messy and confusing and the only thing that can help is having a lot of ammo or using a nicer gun

 

[Dango]

Because games like The Last of Us are only realistic when it suits them, which yes, is a flaw in concept and design.

 

[bluegate]

3) How many times do I need to shoot a cop/military/thug in the head before they die?

Well THIS is validating. Thank you.

I made this thread a while back: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.834943-The-Last-of-Us-When-Does-it-Get-Better

I had the exact same issue as you with the headshots. And a lot of other issues beside. Motherfuckers be all "He was wearing a helmet, yo", like I can't tell the difference between a helmet and a fucking head.

But apparently you can't shoot straight I'm just messing, I'm sorry to hear that you had such a hard time with the gameplay mechanics in game.

As for the topic starter;

1. Go ahead and use up those 20 rounds of ammo, chances are you will see enemies drop more ammo. I did two runs of the game, one stealthy and one run and gun run, there dropped a lot more ammo during my second playthrough.

2. Adapt and get used to the way the game works. Can't get over that? take the disc out and return it from whence it came.

3. Like said before; once, except for certain enemies.

As for 4 and 5, they have been already been addressed in a better manner in the thread ( as have 1 through 3, but ah well ).

Anyway, I hope you manage to enjoy your playthrough of the game

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Because, SPOILER, The Last of Us is not shooting game. If you want a third person shooting gallery with a good story, I'd recommend Red Dead Redemption. The Last of Us is about surviving and the best way to survive a gun fight is to kill your enemies before they kill you. And the best way to do that is to take on enemies one at a time without the others knowing. And you have to do that in a way that saves resources because the cities and towns you've been running through have been picked clean over the last 20 years. When you are forced into all an all out gun fight, they're messy and confusing and the only thing that can help is having a lot of ammo or using a nicer gun

Eh. It doesn't play like a strong survival game either. Survival games...ah fuck it was summed up better in Chick's review...

Furthermore, there are no stakes. There is no risk of failure in a game like this. There is only the risk of having to play the same section yet again. In a survival game, that's anathema. A survival game without meaningful death isn't a survival game. It?s just a game. Because it ultimately doesn't matter how many rag salvage fragments I have. All that matters is whether I can get through this part without taking so much damage this time around.

If TLOU is anything, it's a story game. It's The Walking Dead with naff shooting bits.

But apparently you can't shoot straight

 

[mokes310]

Complaining about difficulty and handholding in the same comment?...

Perhaps I worded that poorly. I was meaning to say that if you're going to walk me down this path, then don't dictate how I decide to solve it, i.e., don't tell me this is the only way that I can solve the problem. It's like working for a boss who always feels that their way is the best, and there's no possible way the task could be done any better. Does that make more sense?

I mean 4/5 of those things have to do with the design choice to make guns a tool rather than your primary manner of combat.

As for the hand holding I don't recall the game having a lot of that. I don't really know how much agency you expect from a linear game though. I mean it's definitely more on the straightforward side but it's a about the story and presentation mainly. The objective of the gameplay is to lead you through the sequences they want you to experience rather than making choices or open ended approaches.

I guess from hand-holding, I mean guiding me towards each and every set-piece, then saying, "you can only solve the puzzle by this means or this means, and no other."

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Eh. It doesn't play like a strong survival game either. Survival games...ah fuck it was summed up better in Chick's review...

Furthermore, there are no stakes. There is no risk of failure in a game like this. There is only the risk of having to play the same section yet again. In a survival game, that's anathema. A survival game without meaningful death isn't a survival game. It?s just a game. Because it ultimately doesn't matter how many rag salvage fragments I have. All that matters is whether I can get through this part without taking so much damage this time around.

Whoever "Chick" is, she's describing a survival simulator. I never said it was hardcore, I just meant that there's more focus on stealth and resource management than shooting

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Whoever "Chick" is, she's describing a survival simulator. I never said it was hardcore, I just meant that there's more focus on stealth and resource management than shooting

Tom Chick is a man. He's been reviewing games since the 80's. I figured his notoriety was high enough in the community that his last name would be sufficient. My bad.

And I agree that the game aims for more of a "survival" feel via the mechanics you describe. I just think it did a generally poor job of it. I went into a lot more detail why in my original thread on the subject. No real need to rehash it here.

I should clarify I do not think The Last of Us is a bad game. I just think it shares real estate with games like Bioshock Infinite, The Walking Dead, To The Moon, Bastion, or even the loathed and controversial Gone Home. It's a game whose story telling acumen elevated what was fundamentally humdrum game play. For that reason its inclusion on GOTY lists neither surprises nor bothers me.

 

[Raggedstar]

Pretty much everything about TLOU has already been mentioned for me. Balance, survival and whatnot. But I do agree that aiming was kinda meh, but then again I can't aim very well without a mouse. However, at least a lot of confrontations are avoidable with proper planning and patience.

Yeah, all absolutely fair points. My primary gripe has to do with what I feel is an absolutely broken mechanic when silently taking guys down.

All points aside, perhaps I should just avoid the other Naughty Dog games in the future if the are all kinda like this?

Well Uncharted is very linear as well, although it's more of a classical TPS where you can gun down a lot of enemies very easily. Ammo is a lot more plentiful.

The Jak trilogy is very different, the first game is a collectathon platformed. 2 and 3 though are more shooter/platformer games, similar to Ratchet and Clank. They're more open world so you can just run around if you feel like, rather than being forced to follow the story. They're great games, I highly recommend them.

Thanks for the recommendations. I have less and less time to game with each passing month, so when I run into an issue with a game/game maker like this, I will tend to avoid them going forward.

But I did want to comment on this conversation more because it's an opportunity to reform others talk about one of my favourite franchises :3 (sorry, got no words on Uncharted).

The first Jak and Daxter is pretty short (a newbie's non-completionist run can clock in around 6 hours), not that difficult, and doesn't require a whole lot of investment. It's also not very story driven and the least linear of the trilogy. Very relaxing and very beautiful. Jak 2 is closer to 12 hours and is more linear and story-driven (and also has narly difficulty spikes), as is Jak 3. And aye, the shooting is a lot like Ratchet and Clank, if you find that comparison effective. All loading times in the games are also hidden. And I guess if you want to dip back farther, the Crash Bandicoot games are pretty awesome and are easy to pick up and play whenever you have the chance.

When looking at the grand scheme of things, the only game comparable to TLOU in Naughty Dog's library is Uncharted (but with more ammo, greater spectacle, and more emphasis on gunplay). They typically had 1 IP per generation (TLOU broke this rule), so they've been pretty varied. So if you're not keen on TLOU then you may find something worthwhile in another of their franchises. If I was to grasp a pattern in their work, it's that they push the hardware to the limits and generally release well-polished work with a lot of detail and effort. Never 100% original, but they do give it their all. Their animation (in the facial expressions most of all) for the time periods are also among the best. People talk about how awesome the mo-cap is in TLOU and Uncharted, but personally my go-to example of good animation with Naughty Dog is Daxter's animation (especially when Jak spins and Dax bobs and whips around and returns to his natural position. Very fluid considering it was released in 2001).

...ok so Jak 2 and 3's shooting is very stiff and the auto-aim ain't great. No real sway though and you can usually learn to compensate.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Whoever "Chick" is, she's describing a survival simulator. I never said it was hardcore, I just meant that there's more focus on stealth and resource management than shooting

Tom Chick is a man. He's been reviewing games since the 80's. I figured his notoriety was high enough in the community that his last name would be sufficient. My bad.

No need to apologize for my ignorance. Is he really that well known?

And I agree that the game aims for more of a "survival" feel via the mechanics you describe. I just think it did a generally poor job of it. I went into a lot more detail why in my original thread on the subject. No real need to rehash it here.

I should clarify I do not think The Last of Us is a bad game. I just think it shares real estate with games like Bioshock Infinite, The Walking Dead, To The Moon, Bastion, or even the loathed and controversial Gone Home. It's a game whose story telling acumen elevated what was fundamentally humdrum game play. For that reason its inclusion on GOTY lists neither surprises nor bothers me.

I do recall your thread and I think I get what you're saying. I've said it before, I'm a connoisseur of both stealth games and apocalypse fiction and The Last of Us just did those things well in my opinion. Its hard to argue whether or not a game's mechanics should focus on making the game fun or reinforce its themes

 

[mokes310]

...Its hard to argue whether or not a game's mechanics should focus on making the game fun or reinforce its themes

And this is the dialectic that perturbs me. I can guarantee you that I'd enjoy the game a whole lot more if I could have carried more ammo and fought through it my way. But when the game takes that decision completely out of my hands, I lost interest.

I'm not saying it's a good or bad game, since I can't really fault it for things it wasn't designed to do, rather, all I can say is that it just wasn't my cup of tea and was disappointed in that.

As far as sneaky games go, games like Assassin's Creed are more my speed. A nice mix of stealth and action, and I'm not limited to one single path. Speaking of games like that; isn't the new Metal Gear Solid game supposed to be like that?

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

...Its hard to argue whether or not a game's mechanics should focus on making the game fun or reinforce its themes

And this is the dialectic that perturbs me. I can guarantee you that I'd enjoy the game a whole lot more if I could have carried more ammo and fought through it my way. But when the game takes that decision completely out of my hands, I lost interest.

I'm not saying it's a good or bad game, since I can't really fault it for things it wasn't designed to do, rather, all I can say is that it just wasn't my cup of tea and was disappointed in that.

I that feel above else, the Last of Us is a game with a message and changing the gameplay might as messed that up. But like I said, I enjoyed the gameplay so I don't see it as a trade off

As far as sneaky games go, games like Assassin's Creed are more my speed. A nice mix of stealth and action, and I'm not limited to one single path. Speaking of games like that; isn't the new Metal Gear Solid game supposed to be like that?

That was my understanding but I haven't bought the new Metal Gear yet. It resembles Metal Solid 4 which can be played a number of ways. You might like Dishonored because the sneaking is fast paced, the levels are open with a lot insersion poins, and when all else fails you can fuck people up without the stealth

 

[Mikeyfell]

It was also the bad kind of stealth where if one guy saw you all the guys knew exactly where you were and then the game turns from hide and seek to Whack-a-mole.

Wouldn't it make sense for an enemy dude to inform other enemy dudes of your position though? And unlike most stealth games, it's quite easy to lose the "alert" status in TLoU. Enemies weren't intune to your exact presence during alert. Not even the Clickers could keep track of you if you kept moving. As soon as someone saw you all you had to do was run away and hide somewhere else. This was a very effective means of luring enemies out, since they would investigate your last known position, giving you the oppertunity to sneak up on them.

TLoU probably had the best stealth I've played in any game, since it wasn't an immediate game over or sucking your thumb while the alert died down. It made for intense guerilla action, where I'd wait for one guy to get seperated, strike him fast with whatever I had handy, and then quickly retreat behind cover to assess my next move. Not to mention the way the game allows you to corpse pile.

I didn't get that sense at all. To me it felt like the enemies were a hive mind. nobody ever raised alert there wasn't even an audio cue like "He's over here!"

The level that sticks out for this problem is the apartment level where I'd get caught by enemies on one level and all the other levels were on alert when I went up there. or I'd punch out an enemy in a secluded room with no witnesses and that would blow my stealth.

 

[Mikeyfell]

That's impossible, since all characters in the game except for Joel are functionally invisible to enemies. Until Joel gets caught.

This is an intentional design choice to make sure that Ellie never alerts any enemy to your position. She can be attacked if you are in combat, sure. But otherwise, no.

Should it make me feel better that Naughty Dog intentionally made bad design choices?

Without the story Last of Us is just an average (at best) stealth game, but without immersion the story is worthless (Or at least significantly diminished)

When I'm in the middle of a dramatic moment I shouldn't be thinking "Why can this guy see Ellie?"

 

[Mike Richards]

Because games like The Last of Us are only realistic when it suits them, which yes, is a flaw in concept and design.

I'm pretty sure you can say that about every single game ever. Or every piece of creative media ever. We only make things that are real in the ways we want them to be at the times we want them to be, that's why they're fictional entertainment and not documentaries.