It's possible that this gameplay was made specifically for the demo and the full version will be different (I've played a few games that have taken a similar approach with the demo and final version).
As far as the ending of the demo goes, moving that cabinet/trolley is going to make a noise and clickers have very accute hearing so there is no way you could move such a heavy and noisy object and not be heard.
It may be that the section shown in the demo, is like that in the final game, there are always going to be sections where combat is the only option. With clickers about, it makes sense to have to take them out.
I think Neil Druckman said that most of the game allows stealth, but sometimes you have to fight. So I can see why the demo is underwhelming for people expecting more choice in gameplay, the demo obviously doesn't allow that. That's just the problem with demo's to me, you are given a small part of the game with no context and somehow expected to get through it. Most of the time it doesn't do the game justice, so I don't bother. Still excited for the game, i've got a good idea of what it will be like so the demo doesn't worry me.
I like the subtle hints that I didn't like the difficulty because I'm somehow naturally a gung-ho COD fan
In reality, my main problem with the difficulty level in the demo (I'm aware the full game may be different) was the inability to adapt to a changing scenario. The first few times I tried it I would get spotted and attempt running away as the game manual tells you to do when overwhelmed. It was only after failing several times, including one time when I stealthily bypassed every single enemy and reached the top of the platform with the trolley to move, that I realised there was actually no way to complete this section without killing every single enemy. That isn't dynamic, Naughty Dog gameplay - that's as linear as gaming gets, and frustratingly so because the game is quite clearly not designed with protracted combat in mind, yet forces you to engage with it here.
Perhaps this particular section is just badly designed and the rest of the game is more balanced, but Naughty Dog are idiotic for putting such a terrible demo out.
I don't think he meant you were a gung-ho COD fan, more that the demo was catered towards that type of player by including a straight forward combat section. The fact that you were looking for something different almost makes you the opposite of that.
I read a teaser article a few days ago, which mentioned Empire's acctidentally published 5/5 "Citizen Kane moment" review, the article said they reccommended people don't play the demo as the story and the gameplay come at you completely out of context and do not represent the final game very well at all.
They also said that they believe TLoU has the greatest opening and ending of any game this generation.
I read a teaser article a few days ago, which mentioned Empire's acctidentally published 5/5 "Citizen Kane moment" review, the article said they reccommended people don't play the demo as the story and the gameplay come at you completely out of context and do not represent the final game very well at all.
They also said that they believe TLoU has the greatest opening and ending of any game this generation.
That's pretty much exactly what I thought, I like being right, it doesn't happen very often.
That's just the problem with demo's to me, you are given a small part of the game with no context and somehow expected to get through it. Most of the time it doesn't do the game justice, so I don't bother. Still excited for the game, i've got a good idea of what it will be like so the demo doesn't worry me.
I know what you mean, I avoided Bulletstorm and Sleeping Dogs based on their demos but enjoyed both games when I played them through PS+. In the case of Sleeping Dogs I really enjoyed that game and kicked myself for not purchasing it earlier.
Really looking forward to Last of Us as well, what I know so far it is sounding pretty awesome.
I wasn't sure if you were joking! It's difficult online lol. There are a lot of conspiracy's out there and a lot of people who believe them. So I thought it best to say nothing.
The only company I personally woulnd't trust is IGN (though I'm looking forward to the Greg Miller video Review as UC3's was a true classic! check it out and try not to blush, it's awesome!!) but yes overall it's hard to say, it reviews well then it can only be a good sign.
You can't knock him for enthusiasm! At the same time I just know we are going to suffer at the hands of these over-pretentious, pompous critics, "THIS IS ART" they will say, "oh look at those pellucid little drops of rain, pitter-pattering down the bedraggled window!!"
The only company I personally woulnd't trust is IGN (though I'm looking forward to the Greg Miller video Review as UC3's was a true classic! check it out and try not to blush, it's awesome!!) but yes overall it's hard to say, it reviews well then it can only be a good sign.
You can't knock him for enthusiasm! At the same time I just know we are going to suffer at the hands of these over-pretentious, pompous critics, "THIS IS ART" they will say, "oh look at those pellucid little drops of rain, pitter-pattering down the bedraggled window!!"
Yeah he has enough enthusiasum for 2 people! Although I don't distrust him. I listen to his podcast and he discussed his review alot, he gave the game to 2 other people and asked if they agreed with his score, then had to pitch it to the higher up's before the 10 was agreed. I personally disagree with the 10 for UC3, i'd have given it 8.9 on thier scale. Either way there are procedures they go through when giving high scores like that. I think Colin Moriarty is doing the Last of Us for IGN, he and Greg are almost the same when it comes to ND and Uncharted so it won't be much different.
Any game I am interested in that gets 8 and above is a must buy/pre order, anything lower just means i'll get it at some point. I don't take reviews as gospel but I can't help but get excited when top scores are thrown out.
Reviewers tend to get carried away with games that profess to be "art". I suspect this is because it gives the reviewers a stronger sense of purpose to their job, as though they've been the first person in the world to see a new Da Vinci painting rather than relatively poorly-paid and semi-respected journalists who play videogames for a living.
The reviewers tend to focus too much on the art then and not enough on the gameplay. It happened with Shadow of the Collossus (good game but tremendously overrated), it happened with GTA IV and it will happen again with many other titles in the future. Is The Last of Us one of those or does it deserve the high scores? Only time will tell.
The only company I personally woulnd't trust is IGN (though I'm looking forward to the Greg Miller video Review as UC3's was a true classic! check it out and try not to blush, it's awesome!!) but yes overall it's hard to say, it reviews well then it can only be a good sign.
You can't knock him for enthusiasm! At the same time I just know we are going to suffer at the hands of these over-pretentious, pompous critics, "THIS IS ART" they will say, "oh look at those pellucid little drops of rain, pitter-pattering down the bedraggled window!!"
Not all titles are artstic, most AAA titles try to be blockbusters instead and then think they are a true art-form.
ICO/SoftC are examples of true art in video games, whether you like it or not, they are true standalone masterpieces! Silent Hill 1-3 would be another example of art.
The Uncharted series are really blockbuster titles. The Last of Us is meant to be a blockbuster too but seems more complex and hopefully more strongly story driven.
This is bugging me now, what's artistic about this game, its a good old fashioned zombie/infected fest, yes ok, they taken on a slightly different approach to the killing, or not killing as stealth plays a part. Yes it might have a great story and that's good but if the game doesn't meet with some gamers expectations then let it be, don't try passing the game off as something it isn't because that just makes me feel sick.
This is bugging me now, what's artistic about this game, its a good old fashioned zombie/infected fest, yes ok, they taken on a slightly different approach to the killing, or not killing as stealth plays a part. Yes it might have a great story and that's good but if the game doesn't meet with some gamers expectations then let it be, don't try passing the game off as something it isn't because that just makes me feel sick.
I will be buying The Last of Us, 'art' or not.
That's quite a difficult question, but I would probably say nothing makes it more artistic than other games. I'm of the opinion that all things created are 'art' that goes for books, films, product design and even video games. So when I see one particlular game being described as 'art' while others aren't, I think it's just a case of using the word to elevate it above everything else in the medium.
I know it's debated a lot as to whether video games are art, to me the answer is simply yes. I think this based on a trip to the Pompidou Centre in Paris years ago, I can't remember the exhibition, but in one room there was a giant banana hanging from the ceiling. I mean wtf is that trying to say? What was the point of it? But it's art because some one says it is, it was created by someone, that's all it takes, every video game is designed and created so they are art too. If people try and make out that 'art' is this higher form of expression and creativity, they are lying, a lot of it is bullsh*t. I say this as an art student. As to whether the art is good or if it connects with you, that's a whole other thing.
That's quite a difficult question, but I would probably say nothing makes it more artistic than other games. I'm of the opinion that all things created are 'art' that goes for books, films, product design and even video games. So when I see one particlular game being described as 'art' while others aren't, I think it's just a case of using the word to elevate it above everything else in the medium.
But in all mediums certain works are elevated above others.
The video game medium is just so young and not unified; and unfortunately is continuality suffering from an perceived infestation with insecurity, to even have a mature debate.
ICO/SoftC are examples of true art in video games, whether you like it or not, they are true standalone masterpieces! Silent Hill 1-3 would be another example of art.
Still have to play Ico - and am aware this is derailing discussion slightly - but how do those who rank SoTC highly manage to overlook the awful camera, the ridiculous dialogue, the bizarre control scheme and the, at times, tremendously frustrating platforming? Or is that all ignored because it has a boy who rides a horse around pretty scenery?
But in all mediums certain works are elevated above others.
The video game medium is just so young and not unified; and unfortunately is continuality suffering from an perceived infestation with insecurity, to even have a mature debate.
Oh I agree totally, and that's the way it should be. It's all subjective, but some works of art are better than others for many reasons, and deserve the praise or critisism they get. I only take issue with one game being described as art, and another not, when to me they all are. It's just a slightly lazy way of saying game A is better than game B because it has a higher concept or packs an emotional punch.
But as you say games as a medium is still finding it's feet. So it is difficult to really get into this kind of debate. Plus my saying all games are art means that Duke Nukem forever is included.
But in all mediums certain works are elevated above others.
The video game medium is just so young and not unified; and unfortunately is continuality suffering from an perceived infestation with insecurity, to even have a mature debate.
I'm all for elevating works from any medium, same go's for the Last of Us, if the game is indeed worthy of such elevation.
However, calling a video game art is stretching the imagination to the limits, yes I suppose the attention to detail by the creator could be seen in an artistic light, and the graphical content itself is 'art', but a zombie game as a whole would never be elevated to art by me. It all comes across as to 'deep', reading far to much into a work than want it actually is. Almost like trying to hard to be a superior thinker. it's like when that child splattered paint all over a blank canvas, it received critical acclaim but what these critics didn't know was the age of the 'artist'
This is bugging me now, what's artistic about this game, its a good old fashioned zombie/infected fest, yes ok, they taken on a slightly different approach to the killing, or not killing as stealth plays a part. Yes it might have a great story and that's good but if the game doesn't meet with some gamers expectations then let it be, don't try passing the game off as something it isn't because that just makes me feel sick.
I will be buying The Last of Us, 'art' or not.
Anything created by ND these days appears to have this stgima attached to it. One of my pet peeves is reading over-pretentious gushings over a videogame.
Because of the reaction/expectations to most ND games and the level of hype/attention they receive I find them terribly overrated developers as a result. Don't get me wrong, they make good games (JAK series was truly fantastic) but people take it too far. TLS isn't really doing anything different to what's come before, only this time it's being done with a huge budget and with Hollywood polish. Underneath though it's just a typical survival horror/corridor shooter that Resi Evil done years ago, borrowing many elements of Manhunt and including an incredibly annoying potty-mouthed teenage girl along for the ride.
I bet the story mode is completed in under ten hours with poor replayability, but i hear the multiplayer might be fun though?
Comments
It may be that the section shown in the demo, is like that in the final game, there are always going to be sections where combat is the only option. With clickers about, it makes sense to have to take them out.
I think Neil Druckman said that most of the game allows stealth, but sometimes you have to fight. So I can see why the demo is underwhelming for people expecting more choice in gameplay, the demo obviously doesn't allow that. That's just the problem with demo's to me, you are given a small part of the game with no context and somehow expected to get through it. Most of the time it doesn't do the game justice, so I don't bother. Still excited for the game, i've got a good idea of what it will be like so the demo doesn't worry me.
I don't think he meant you were a gung-ho COD fan, more that the demo was catered towards that type of player by including a straight forward combat section. The fact that you were looking for something different almost makes you the opposite of that.
That's pretty much exactly what I thought, I like being right, it doesn't happen very often.
Also the bit in the spoiler, to....much....hype!
You're not - serves you right for not buying God of War!
I know what you mean, I avoided Bulletstorm and Sleeping Dogs based on their demos but enjoyed both games when I played them through PS+. In the case of Sleeping Dogs I really enjoyed that game and kicked myself for not purchasing it earlier.
Really looking forward to Last of Us as well, what I know so far it is sounding pretty awesome.
Edit: Apparently it's getting 10/10 from Edge, that's it, my hype level can go no higher.
.....Ok, I literally have nothing to say to that sorry.
I wasn't sure if you were joking! It's difficult online lol. There are a lot of conspiracy's out there and a lot of people who believe them. So I thought it best to say nothing.
You can't knock him for enthusiasm! At the same time I just know we are going to suffer at the hands of these over-pretentious, pompous critics, "THIS IS ART" they will say, "oh look at those pellucid little drops of rain, pitter-pattering down the bedraggled window!!"
Yeah he has enough enthusiasum for 2 people! Although I don't distrust him. I listen to his podcast and he discussed his review alot, he gave the game to 2 other people and asked if they agreed with his score, then had to pitch it to the higher up's before the 10 was agreed. I personally disagree with the 10 for UC3, i'd have given it 8.9 on thier scale. Either way there are procedures they go through when giving high scores like that. I think Colin Moriarty is doing the Last of Us for IGN, he and Greg are almost the same when it comes to ND and Uncharted so it won't be much different.
Any game I am interested in that gets 8 and above is a must buy/pre order, anything lower just means i'll get it at some point. I don't take reviews as gospel but I can't help but get excited when top scores are thrown out.
The reviewers tend to focus too much on the art then and not enough on the gameplay. It happened with Shadow of the Collossus (good game but tremendously overrated), it happened with GTA IV and it will happen again with many other titles in the future. Is The Last of Us one of those or does it deserve the high scores? Only time will tell.
Or who can forget the Mountain Dew/Dorito/Halo disaster, haha, (http://gamechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/doritogate.png).
ICO/SoftC are examples of true art in video games, whether you like it or not, they are true standalone masterpieces! Silent Hill 1-3 would be another example of art.
The Uncharted series are really blockbuster titles. The Last of Us is meant to be a blockbuster too but seems more complex and hopefully more strongly story driven.
I will be buying The Last of Us, 'art' or not.
That's quite a difficult question, but I would probably say nothing makes it more artistic than other games. I'm of the opinion that all things created are 'art' that goes for books, films, product design and even video games. So when I see one particlular game being described as 'art' while others aren't, I think it's just a case of using the word to elevate it above everything else in the medium.
I know it's debated a lot as to whether video games are art, to me the answer is simply yes. I think this based on a trip to the Pompidou Centre in Paris years ago, I can't remember the exhibition, but in one room there was a giant banana hanging from the ceiling. I mean wtf is that trying to say? What was the point of it? But it's art because some one says it is, it was created by someone, that's all it takes, every video game is designed and created so they are art too. If people try and make out that 'art' is this higher form of expression and creativity, they are lying, a lot of it is bullsh*t. I say this as an art student. As to whether the art is good or if it connects with you, that's a whole other thing.
But in all mediums certain works are elevated above others.
The video game medium is just so young and not unified; and unfortunately is continuality suffering from an perceived infestation with insecurity, to even have a mature debate.
Still have to play Ico - and am aware this is derailing discussion slightly - but how do those who rank SoTC highly manage to overlook the awful camera, the ridiculous dialogue, the bizarre control scheme and the, at times, tremendously frustrating platforming? Or is that all ignored because it has a boy who rides a horse around pretty scenery?
Oh I agree totally, and that's the way it should be. It's all subjective, but some works of art are better than others for many reasons, and deserve the praise or critisism they get. I only take issue with one game being described as art, and another not, when to me they all are. It's just a slightly lazy way of saying game A is better than game B because it has a higher concept or packs an emotional punch.
But as you say games as a medium is still finding it's feet. So it is difficult to really get into this kind of debate. Plus my saying all games are art means that Duke Nukem forever is included.
I'm all for elevating works from any medium, same go's for the Last of Us, if the game is indeed worthy of such elevation.
However, calling a video game art is stretching the imagination to the limits, yes I suppose the attention to detail by the creator could be seen in an artistic light, and the graphical content itself is 'art', but a zombie game as a whole would never be elevated to art by me. It all comes across as to 'deep', reading far to much into a work than want it actually is. Almost like trying to hard to be a superior thinker. it's like when that child splattered paint all over a blank canvas, it received critical acclaim but what these critics didn't know was the age of the 'artist'
Anything created by ND these days appears to have this stgima attached to it. One of my pet peeves is reading over-pretentious gushings over a videogame.
Because of the reaction/expectations to most ND games and the level of hype/attention they receive I find them terribly overrated developers as a result. Don't get me wrong, they make good games (JAK series was truly fantastic) but people take it too far. TLS isn't really doing anything different to what's come before, only this time it's being done with a huge budget and with Hollywood polish. Underneath though it's just a typical survival horror/corridor shooter that Resi Evil done years ago, borrowing many elements of Manhunt and including an incredibly annoying potty-mouthed teenage girl along for the ride.
I bet the story mode is completed in under ten hours with poor replayability, but i hear the multiplayer might be fun though?