Topic: The PlayStation Fan Thread

Don't get me wrong, I love Beyond: Two Souls, Life is Strange, and The Last of Us. I prefer cutscenes in games more than any movies on film: It's just a less constrained medium.

By the way, @Joetherocker, I'd say The Last of Us is the most essential 8th gen Playstation game. Certainly before Uncharted 4. It's just such a perfect marriage of survival horror crafting and scrounging with a bleak, character-driven story.

@CanisWolfred That's the problem narrative driven games have I think. It's difficult to know beforehand whether you're going to like the story or not. It's easy to tell from a gameplay perspective, but without actually spoiling the story, there's basically no way to know whether the game's story is up your alley or not. The only things I knew about Firewatch before I bought the game was that it took place in a beautifully crafted world and that the dialogue between the two characters was high-quality. Turns out, I liked the story as well.

And that's when I realize that we're on polar opposite sides of this potential debate. I'm just gonna move on before I go on another 4-hour long rant like last time...

EDIT: Or at least I won't post the rant here for your viewing pleasure. I did, however, fume in silence for a solid 20 minutes. I'm better now, though.

@Octane

That's true, but that's also what I was getting at. Personally, I just don't feel the risk is worth the prize. I guess it's just the way I am, though. I'd rather trust what I can see with my own two eyes. I'll appreciate a good story when I get it, but I've been burnt enough times that I just can't bank on it anymore.

My problem with story-heavy Western games is usually how boring they are. Consider Naughty Dog and its setpiece-heavy roller-coasters. TLOU might be a gorgeous game, but when the gameplay revolves primarily around moving planks, fending off hordes of generic mooks, and other heavily-scripted exploration and action sequences, I just lose any interest in playing. Not to mention the countless Western games that do that boring thing where characters are talking and the game expects me to slowly walk forward until some other scripted thing happens.

If a game wants to focus on developing a narrative, I'd prefer it just go about telling a story and stop forcing me to do boring chores to move the story forward.

EDIT: Started playing Gal Gun yesterday. The story is total nonsense, of course, but the gameplay itself is a lot of fun. I love the little quests characters give you, too.

@Ralizah Guess you missed all the stealth sections, the exploration, crafting and item managing then!

I think there's plenty of games that are guilty of leaning to much to the narrative side, but I don't think TLOU was one of them. It's a perfect example of how to combine a good story with good gameplay.

I didn't miss it, I just didn't find it worth mentioning. The stealth mechanics in this game are very basic. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's certainly not a feature I'd boast about.

the exploration

I believe I mentioned the heavily scripted exploration that never lets you break off from the narrative rails at all. That's not really exploration, is it? I mean, most games let you navigate an environment to some degree. It's much less exploratory than the majority of recent Western AAA games I've played.

crafting and item managing

Yes, the game has items and a simplistic crafting system. Lots of games do. Again, didn't feel it was really worth mentioning, considering it's a basic thing that a lot of games have.

I think there's plenty of games that are guilty of leaning to much to the narrative side, but I don't think TLOU was one of them. It's a perfect example of how to combine a good story with good gameplay.

I disagree. I feel that, in its attempt to create a narrative-heavy action/horror game, TLOU failed as both a meaningful narrative and as a game. The story is pretty generic apocalyptic material (although I found both the explanation for the cause of the infection and the function of the clicker enemies in the game to be pretty novel, although enemies that instantly kill you when they attack tend to be pretty annoying), nothing interesting ever really happens with the characters, and the game populates its world with random video game mooks instead of really exploring the weird stuff that the end of the world can do to people. As for the game portion, it's full of dreadfully dull plank-moving puzzles, limiting sections that usually revolve around killing lots of enemy waves, "exploration" sections that involve a lot of pointless banter and no real opportunity to get lost and/or do something other than what the game wants you to do, and stealth sections that involve a lot of creeping around and killing people. It's too restricting for me to really enjoy it on a gameplay level.

I understand this game resonates with a lot of people, and I was really looking forward to it going in, but it was honestly one of the most disappointing video game experiences I've ever had.

EDIT: I might have enjoyed the game more if I didn't find combat in ND games to be incredibly clunky. At least, in UC 1, 2, and TLOU, which are the modern ND games I've played.

I think The Last of Us' stealth third person shooting was quite pulse-pounding. It was unique how you'd have to sneak up behind people and strangle or shiv them without being seen by others. Plus, sniping dudes with the bow and hunting rifle felt great.

Apparently Inside, the purported Xbox One exclusive, is coming out on PS4 as soon as August 23rd. I'm super excited about this. It seems games are coming out faster than ever before this gen. For as much as Japanese games, in particular Nintendo, have taken a hit in eighth gen, I really like where the industry is going.

First off..."unique" is the last word I would use there, seeing as you just described the very definition of stealth gameplay that;s been established since Tenchu on the PSOne...but considering what came after, I'm guessing that wasn't the word you meant to use there. At the very least, I think you would very much enjoy the latest Tomb Raider games, Batman games, Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror & Logan's Shadow, several of the Splinter Cell games, and if you don't mind a little First-person gameplay in there, Crysis 1-3 and Far Cry 3/4 might just be up your alley as well.

That said, Ralizah summed up the vast majority of my complaints with The Last of Us, except I found the combat to be at least purposely clunky, which I suppose has some merit. It didn't make it any more fun to play, though. Ultimately it was a collection of my least favorite elements of modern action-adventure games, all wrapped up in one single, bland package that I'm sure I'll have forgotten all about in a few years. And when I finally do remember it, I hope beyond hope that it'll be proof of how far that generation of gaming has come since 2013.

I've played Tomb Raider, vaguely hated Arkham Knight (in which stealth didn't even do anything in most encounters, so I don't know why you're bringing it up), and don't know what Syphon Filter is except in reference to Playstation press conference presenters.

Is the wobble added to the aiming why you're perturbed by The Last of Us? It's honestly hilarious to me just how many got upset over that—it's tank controls. A survival horror mechanic included to make the game more difficult than a normal shooter. To make it a struggle. The unique stealth mechanics I was talking about—which was in the same sentence you must have had to have read—was the choice of the quicker, consumable shivs which could kill clickers or the slower strangle. That kind of resource management was fun. It made it feel great when you nailed a pack of zombies with a molotov or landed a clean kill shot with the bow, saving ammo.

But you're missing the point by delving into all of these details. I didn't play The Last of Us because I wanted to stalk around chocking people to death like a psychopath, I played it because it was all-around great. It's a complete package of a game, unlike the ones you mentioned. Tomb Raider was great—super fun—but it was sooo dumb! The Last of Us had flawless cutscenes, writing, level design, and gameplay, which all coexisted and bolstered one another synergistically. Tomb Raider is fun, but it's a much more clinical experience when the story is just some generic trash combined with creepy gender politics.

Super hyped on Rise of the Tomb Raider though, lol.

@Haru17 - I haven't played Arkham Knight. I used Stealth a lot in Asylum and City, though (admittedly it may have been less necessary in Arkam City, but I was stubborn).

Also, tank controls aren't that bad so long as you don't have to deal with verticality, since horizontal movement alone is enough of a struggle....I don't know why you think that's comparable to The Last of Us, though. The wobble did indeed add realism, but it did nothing to make the game more enjoyable for me. It just meant I missed a lot in situations where it mattered most, since enemies apparently know your every position after seeing you even once, and now the entire room is swarming on me.

Then again, I guess that's supposed to enforce the stealth mechanics, which I wasn't a big fan of. Honestly, I'm not a fan of stealth gameplay as a whole - it's fundamentally strict when presented as the central mechanic, and that just leads to too much frustration, from my experience. I can only handle it when it's presented as an option, hence why I referenced the games I did (except Splinter Cell, but that was basically Tenchu in a modern setting).

Really, Third-person shooting with wobbly aiming, stealth gameplay that's mostly just QTE takedowns (and I guess a bow? I never use bows in games when I still have the option to use a gun), survival mechanics that just serve to exacerbate the first two issues, "exploration", overly simplistic puzzle interruptions, Clickers, and a story and aesthetic that couldn't be more drab if it tried...I honestly struggled to find a good thing about the game: I enjoyed burning zombies with molotovs. That was about it.

(EDIT: ...also, it took me a long time to remember the shivs. I guess they didn't leave much of an impression? I don't remember ever running out, but we only ever used them on certain zombies...)

...Sigh this is why I tried to move on before. On top of all that, it was one of the last games I played with my brother before he went out to his third semester in an out-of-state college, and I think it kind of turned him off gaming as a whole. I had never intended to play it myself - I knew going in that it wasn't my jam, but he insisted upon it after seeing some footage online, plus he likes story-focused games, which actually reminds me of why we were talking about this in the first place. My brother and I tend to be opposites, so I figured he'd probably get more out of it than I do, and I wanted to do something for him that still utilized my near-autistic love of video games...I guess it backfired, though he was never a big gamer to begin with.

Basically, I have personal reasons to hate the game, and without that, it would just be yet another recent action adventure game that failed to appeal to me, and I would've moved on by now. Now I can't even think about without getting upset...

...at the very least, had we just been talking about Life is Strange and Quantic Dreams' pretentious tripe, I would've only had two sentences to contribute to the discussion.

I'm not usually too big on stealth either. I've only really enjoyed it in Skyrim and The Last of Us... wait, then why did you bring up Tenchu?

...You realize the stealth takedowns in Metal Gear are more QTE than those in The Last of Us... right? They're stealth takedowns: You sneak up on an enemy and press a button. No one but you calls that a "QTE."

Wait, then why did you bring up Tomb Raider!? There are only four weapons in that game and the most important one is a bow!

Aww, dude, c'mon: Same universe, here! They literally packed as much greenery as humanly possible into a freeway onramp. What about this is drab!? Not to mention that, back in 2013, it was a strong contender for the most high-fidelity game ever made.

Quantic Dream's stuff can be a bit campy, but Life is Strange is just a masterpiece. Doubtlessly one of the strongest titles of 2015 with the innovative rewinding feature. Alright, now I just think we have diametrically-opposed taste. And that's okay! But, y'know... you're a trash monster :/ (And you're quite free to think that of me. I get kickbacks from it.)

Argh, this conversation irks me so much! I don't want wide-eyed Nintendo converts to think The Last of Us is a controversial game—It's not a controversial game. It was released to widespread critical acclaim and won the lion's share of 2013's GOTYs. The people who're now trying to retroactively tear it down are just a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals (present company excluded) who come in and talk about the qualities of Dark Souls, and how the game should be more like Dark Souls. And how it should be non-linear, and open world, and tell it's story entirely through environmental cues, not cutscenes—How it should completely change its identity and ruin the gem of an AAA that somehow made it out of a mainstream publisher in the first place!

Y'know, the people who don't like The Last of Us' story couldn't even tell you half of its narrative complexities. If you mention—even mention—the zombies or post-apocalyptic setting in reference to its story and themes, then you're missing the point. That's what's called a "surface-level read." That's Naughty Dog pointing the camera one way and you turning around to study the back of your chair.

[Heavy sigh] I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It's not like video games in any way prepared their audience for this. But that's why it's so exciting! The Last of Us is a new venue for art: A way for literature to exist outside of dusty pages or arthouse theaters. And it's astounding to me that the game industry has so far squandered this opportunity, fellating players' egos by emphasizing agency over art. It's not a coincidence that the notable works or literature aren't choose your own adventure books. You just can't tell a meaningful story if all of the pieces are motile. There's no room for theming, imagery, detailed character arcs. Player agency takes everything about a story and spreads it out, drawing it too thin, too broad, and turns what could have been unique, generic.

By the way, I can explain what I'm broadly referring to as "complexities" and "themes" if you want. It'll be spoilers though.

1) Tenchu's gameplay is very similar to Splinter Cell. I played Tenchu a lot on the PSOne, so when I played Splinter Cell, I was already familiar enough with its general mechanics that I didn't have a frustrating time with it, like I've had in most stealth games since. Splinter Cell was the only one on the list that I could definitively say was a hardcore stealth game, which, as I've mentioned, I can't really get into.

2) Poor choice of words on my part, I'll admit. I wasn't feeling too confident about it when I was writing that sentence, but I forgot about the term "contextual button presses" until you wrote it. There's more to stealth games than just Takedowns, though, but you're right, I was only muddling my own point. I wrote that paragraph before I wrote the stuff above it, and I guess I should've altered that sentence to keep it in line with the rest of my post.

3) I wasn't sure if you played it. I honestly put it down in 30 minutes. The rest were games I liked, though, but I wasn't sure how savy you were in this area. I mean, at the time I figured you thought "Stealth Takedowns" were a unique mechanic (and I realized my mistake a while later, but not in time to correct it), so I assumed you hadn't played a lot of modern action-adventure games. We're on a Nintendo forum. You wouldn't be the only one, if that were the case, I assure you.

4) It's drab. Boring. I've seen that before, in the same footage of Chernobyl that every post-apocalyptic movie or game in the last 15 years have referencing. Plus, that screenshot is how the vast majority of the game looks. I understand that it's impressive that they could make it look so realistic, but a technical achievement like that loses its novelty verry quickly upon repetition, and I lost interest in it by the time they released the third trailer on the internet. Besides, I could've forgiven it if I found the plot and characters interesting. I'm not gonna bother arguing there, that's just personal tastes, and you've already given your position on that subject a while ago. Agree to disagree?

5) Life is Strange was not my kind of game, mostly because I hated the characters, and found the story to be too similar to some anime I've watched and couldn't stop comparing it to. Since those were the crux of the game, there wasn't any reason for me to play it. Heck, I only got it thanks to the worst Humble Bundle I've ever wasted money on. Tomb Raider was in it as well, now that I think about it. I only got it for The Last Remnant...that's almost poetic, now that I think about it...

That makes sense. You should give Tomb Raider another shot. It's really dumb and violent, but at least the later of those two makes it fun! Plus it's metroidvanian.

How many of the episodes did you play? Things... really evolve after episode 1. It's a lot less subtle then The Last of Us, with jokey dialogue and teen murder mystery intrigue. And if you mean Chloe... well, you're supposed to hate Chloe. Give her until at least the third episode. Max (protagonist) also stars out bland and, don't get me wrong, has some bad lines. I reviewed this game and my choicest selections were "I like skater boys" and “…Is that too hipster?”

I think Life is Strange is a perfect example of "don't judge a book by its cover." The first episode is very much a set up for the rest of the story. The way the play that game is by examining all of the objects and exploring (rewinding) all of the conversations in each environment. There's a lot of character development to miss, especially in each of the girls' rooms. If nothing else, just play through episode 2. That serves as a good out point, among other things.

@Haru17 I'll consider it, for sure...I mean, I have all 5 episodes in my Steam library, I'm sure I'll get it eventually. Same with Tomb Raider. Though, it'll have to wait until after Tomb Raider: Anniversary - that game I liked!

I just realised that some games seem to receive so much passion, both in the 'I loved it' and 'I hated it' camp, that it amazes me how some folks have different perceptions to others.

And I mean this is a good way, of course. Life would be very dull if everybody likes and dislikes the same things!

I personally love The Last of Us for two reasons.

1) I had been a Nintendo gamer for 90% of my life, until I bought a PS3 slim back in early 2013. The first wave of games I bought and played were the likes of BioShock Infinite, Journey and The Last of Us.

Those three are something you would never, ever play on a Nintendo console, and I experienced three completely new and unique games (for me, at least!) that I had never, ever experienced on any of my prior Nintendo consoles.

The Last of Us just blew me away with it characters, dialogue, emergence and tense gameplay and a story that kept me curious all the way up to the (well known) closing shot. I knew I had played something quite special.

2) Going from Nintendo to Naughty Dog shows two extremely different studios with different aims in mind. For me, it felt like a jolt to the senses to go from Wii Sports, Super Mario Galaxy and Mario Kart Wii to something like The Last of Us.

It made me realise that being daftly loyal to one company means I am missing out on all these other (new) experiences. If only I could knock some sense into the person I was over ten years ago...

Think I may start saving for neo tomorrow. Don't care about the 4k, I like upgrading my stuff once in a while and I want it for better performance.

Edit: though I should probably see what real world improvements are.

So what? Some critically acclaimed game comes out every year that the media and gullible gamers incessantly gab on about. It's usually some boorish, billion-dollar game about an angry, grizzled white guy who runs around brutally murdering people for whatever reason.

The people who're now trying to retroactively tear it down are just a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals (present company excluded) who come in and talk about the qualities of Dark Souls, and how the game should be more like Dark Souls. And how it should be non-linear, and open world, and tell it's story entirely through environmental cues, not cutscenes—How it should completely change its identity and ruin the gem of an AAA that somehow made it out of a mainstream publisher in the first place!

"Everyone who criticizes this deep, meaningful game is a pseudo-intellectual who just wants everything to be Dark Souls... except you guys. You're cool."

Not even sure what to say to that. Self-awareness is not your strong suit, evidently.

You know why more people are criticizing it now? Because this is usually what happens when a piece of media is massively over-hyped upon release. ESPECIALLY with video games. They follow this boom/bust hype cycle where people act like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread for awhile and then, once excitement dies down or something else shiny releases to capture their interest, they start to see the flaws that were always present in the game and people who never participated in this cycle in the first place can voice their displeasure with the game with reduced fear of ridicule from their peers. I've watched this happen over, and over, and over.

Y'know, the people who don't like The Last of Us' story couldn't even tell you half of its narrative complexities. If you mention—even mention—the zombies or post-apocalyptic setting in reference to its story and themes, then you're missing the point. That's what's called a "surface-level read." That's Naughty Dog pointing the camera one way and you turning around to study the back of your chair.

Yes, people tend to mention a game's story and setting when discussing a game's story and themes. You're one of those people who seriously thinks something like Night of the Living Dead is a satirical look at gender and race relations in the '60s, aren't you?

TLOU is a bog-standard post-apocalyptic survival story. Its themes don't really go much deeper than what you might find in an average episode of The Walking Dead. And it's missing almost all of the haunting poetic imagery in superior apocalyptic media like Cormac McCarthy's The Road.

If you want a post-apocalyptic story that is full of fascinating, original ideas, I recommend reading A Canticle for Leibowitz. It's much better than anything that Naughty Dog will ever churn out.

[Heavy sigh] I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It's not like video games in any way prepared their audience for this. But that's why it's so exciting! The Last of Us is a new venue for art: A way for literature to exist outside of dusty pages or arthouse theaters. And it's astounding to me that the game industry has so far <strong>squandered this opportunity, fellating players' egos by emphasizing agency over art. It's not a coincidence that the notable works or literature aren't choose your own adventure books. You just can't tell a meaningful story if all of the pieces are motile. There's no room for theming, imagery, detailed character arcs. Player agency takes everything about a story and spreads it out, drawing it too thin, too broad, and turns what could have been unique, generic.

I disagree. Plenty of very well-written games factor player agency into the equation. It's the defining aspect of the medium, in fact. Why create a video game when you're actually just trying to make a movie instead?

The best examples of a medium are usually those that take advantage of its unique characteristics to tell a story in as unique and engaging a way as possible. Citizen Kane had to be a movie. Ulysses and House of Leaves had to be literature. Watchmen only really worked well as a graphic novel. And the best TV shows only really work as just that. Why shouldn't the same standard apply to video games? Interactivity isn't some annoying flaw inherent in the medium that should be worked around as much as possible, and great video games should fully embrace the implications of interactive entertainment.

EDIT: Also gotta agree with CanisWolfred on the game looking dull and washed out. I mean, I understand the intention behind making it look the way it does (the aftermath of an apocalyptic reign of terror that spreads across the Earth isn't going to be painted in bright, neon colors in a game unless it's named Danganronpa), but the game, while being very impressive-looking, is also visually boring. Same thing could be said about The Order: 1886 as well.

EDIT THE SECOND: Also, while I don't think Soulsborne games are as good as people make them out to be either (although this is more down to personal preference than any valid criticism I could lob at them), I think there is something to be said about the intelligently layered emergent storytelling in them. Games like Dark Souls and Metroid Prime have found ways to tell stories that almost perfectly jell with the format, and I think that's pretty cool.

I prefer games like Undertale, Zero Escape, Eternal Darkness, and Metal Gear Solid 2 that actively aim at and either comment on or mess with the relationship between the player and the game itself, though.

Thank you! While I didn't write it down, I was trying to remember the title of that book for about two whole hours after he wrote that post. Did they ever make a movie adaption? Not that I'd watch it, I'm just curious. I was also trying to remember if there was a movie about refugees escaping from a modern civil war, mostly centered on an older man and a kid...I could swear that was a thing, but google's failing me (as it has for the past two years).

Just want to say that I too prefer my video games stories when they're presented in a manner that could only be accomplished in an interactive medium, and I definitely agree with your examples (except I was thinking of the first Metal Gear Solid).