#1 Posted by TurboMan (8157 posts) -

One of the main problems many reviews seem to be coming up with for The Last of Us is a problem similar to what Jeff had with Bioshock Infinite. That sometimes your AI buddy isn't in as much danger from the enemies as you are.

A lot of reviews seem to point out that when in stealth sequences, Ellie could have path finding problems and take a weird detour around an object to remain with you, in plain view of the enemies. While you might have a point in saying that the pathfinding is off, I think it's weird saying that the game not punishing you for something that you didn't cause to happen is a negative.

It seems to me that it would be much more frustrating if you was successfully stealthing (a real word I'm sure) past a set of enemies and be forced into a combat sequence by the AI. Also, why do you want the AI to be in as much danger as you are? Do you want me to remind you how much everyone hates escort missions?

Small thing to be upset about, I guess.

#2 Edited by Ghostiet (5552 posts) -

Until the AI isn't good enough to allow for babysitting it without it being too obtrusive or even becoming fun, it's something we have to accept.

Although the BioShock comparison doesn't really stand from what you can gather from reviewers and videos - Infinite bypassed the problem by making Elizabeth completely invincible and removing her from the action altogether. Ellie can die and she takes a more active part in the gameplay - so I'd say it's excusable.

#3 Edited by Yummylee (23189 posts) -

From the reviews I've read, they've noted that Ellie's pathfinding can break the immersion, but that it's still much more preferable to also getting into a fucked up situation all thanks to the AI. I should add that I've only read GB's and Polygon's, though...

#4 Posted by ModernAlkemie (369 posts) -

It sounds much more preferable to the alternative (at least as far as I understand the current level of AI technology) which would be turning The Last of Us into Escort Mission: The Game.

#5 Posted by pompouspizza (419 posts) -

@turboman: I agree completely, although I kind of get why it bothers some people because it takes them out of the experience I much prefer it this way. If it was the other way around people would still be complaining.

#6 Edited by Winternet (8236 posts) -

I don't know about Last of Us, but in the case of Infinite there were a couple of good reasons for it, mainly because the enemies' goal was to capture Elizabeth, so it would be pretty stupid for them to start shooting her.

#7 Posted by TurboMan (8157 posts) -

@winternet: I'm guessing maybe you can make the case of the human enemies not wanting to murder a teenage girl.

#8 Edited by Chibithor (584 posts) -

It's a cop out. There's no doubt that the alternative that you're suggesting is worse, but the Infinite idea of making Elizabeth invisible and immortal is just a temporary fix and not an actual solution. I didn't mind it that much for the record, but that there are worse ways to do it doesn't invalidate the criticism.

#9 Posted by Zeik (3077 posts) -

@chibithor: I think it's a valid criticism to the extent that it is something that developers need to continue to improve in the future, but seeing as I know of no game that has actually successfully pulled that off I don't think it's particularly reasonable to expect otherwise. Frankly, I don't think current technology is truly capable of achieving that. They could potentially mask it better, but AI just hasn't advanced enough to truly simulate human intelligence under those circumstances.

Online
#10 Posted by Chibithor (584 posts) -

@zeik: You can explain a lot of flaws and oddities in games by looking at what the devs had to work with but it's fine to critique them anyway. They wanted to make a specific kind of game and they had to cut some corners to do it (as I'd imagine is the case with most games), it just so happened that the cuts had to be done to a major feature (the AI partner).

#11 Posted by Fearbeard (863 posts) -

I suppose the biggest issue with that is that it takes you out of the immersion for a second. Personally I don't mind it. I would much rather have an AI companion that I never have to worry about then one that keeps getting killed and making me reset a checkpoint. That takes me out of the experience more then anything else.

#12 Posted by dropabombonit (1541 posts) -

I don't have much of an issue with but I will say I did notice it a couple of times. The combat is dynamic enough that if you get spotted you always have options

#13 Posted by TangoUp (327 posts) -

I don't know about this game, but stealth in Uncharted 3 was freaking broken. I don't know if ND have fixed that.

#14 Posted by Brendan (8599 posts) -

@zeik: Couldn't an effective system break the game in another way? An AI partner that goes around being stealthy without getting caught is sort of like the super guide in a New Super Mario game, or in other words a guide in front of your face, showing you where to go and how to not be seen just by doing everything right without getting caught.

#15 Edited by Bell_End (1234 posts) -

there is an audiolog in BS:I from comstock insisting that Elizabeth is unharmed. so they have been ordered to not shoot at her.

#16 Edited by impartialgecko (1742 posts) -

I would be infuriated if you were at the mercy of NPC AI bugging out in stealth sections.

#17 Posted by JazGalaxy (1638 posts) -

@turboman said:

One of the main problems many reviews seem to be coming up with for The Last of Us is a problem similar to what Jeff had with Bioshock Infinite. That sometimes your AI buddy isn't in as much danger from the enemies as you are.

A lot of reviews seem to point out that when in stealth sequences, Ellie could have path finding problems and take a weird detour around an object to remain with you, in plain view of the enemies. While you might have a point in saying that the pathfinding is off, I think it's weird saying that the game not punishing you for something that you didn't cause to happen is a negative.

It seems to me that it would be much more frustrating if you was successfully stealthing (a real word I'm sure) past a set of enemies and be forced into a combat sequence by the AI. Also, why do you want the AI to be in as much danger as you are? Do you want me to remind you how much everyone hates escort missions?

Small thing to be upset about, I guess.

I honestly get really agitated when people complain about videogames being videogames.

If it's an otherwise quality product, and a character clips through the environment when you're not supposed to be looking? Guess what? There's probably a reason. People MADE that crap out of nothing. She's not a real person who you can just tell "don't do that".

Seriouly, if people's enjoyment of this, or Bioshock, or Fallout hinges on stuff like that... you're playing games for the wrong reason. Go watch movies. (And nitpick about how table setting in one scene breaks continuity with another scene)

#18 Posted by Zeik (3077 posts) -

@brendan said:

@zeik: Couldn't an effective system break the game in another way? An AI partner that goes around being stealthy without getting caught is sort of like the super guide in a New Super Mario game, or in other words a guide in front of your face, showing you where to go and how to not be seen just by doing everything right without getting caught.

AI partners usually don't advance ahead of the player though. Besides, that could actually be a great way to contextually show the player how to be stealthy. Games are full of contextual cues like that. The super guide is more like just watching a youtube walkthrough.

Online
#19 Posted by flakmunkey (160 posts) -

I get the immersion thing, I do, Immersion is cool. What I don't get is people who get so upset when immersion is "broken". You mean all of a sudden you realized you were playing a game and not ACTUALLY fighting fungus zombies? If you got so immersed in this game that AI pathing is what it takes to make you realize that you're still actually just sitting on your couch then I would call that a compliment to the game, as I have yet to play a game (or taken a drug for that matter) that immerses me THAT much, and I've been playing games (and taking drugs :P) for a long time. It's still a videogame, you can tell by that plastic thing your mashing your fingers against with all the joysticks and buttons. Maybe when were all playing on Oculus Rift HDs we'll be that immersed, but until then I think this can slide a little.

#20 Posted by Landon (4134 posts) -

I get the immersion thing, I do, Immersion is cool. What I don't get is people who get so upset when immersion is "broken". You mean all of a sudden you realized you were playing a game and not ACTUALLY fighting fungus zombies? If you got so immersed in this game that AI pathing is what it takes to make you realize that you're still actually just sitting on your couch then I would call that a compliment to the game, as I have yet to play a game (or taken a drug for that matter) that immerses me THAT much, and I've been playing games (and taking drugs :P) for a long time. It's still a videogame, you can tell by that plastic thing your mashing your fingers against with all the joysticks and buttons. Maybe when were all playing on Oculus Rift HDs we'll be that immersed, but until then I think this can slide a little.

People get upset about immersion breaking gameplay because certain games want to make you stop thinking your playing a game. They want you to role play your character and get invested in the world and in the story. And it's really jarring when a game succeeds at doing that and then has this one thing that completely rips you out of it.

Would you really be okay with watching a super serious movie, something like The Godfather or Shawshank, but having the cinematography being so bad that you can see the camera and the boom mike in almost every shot? Of course not, because when everything is good, all your eyes are going to see is the one obviously terrible part that is sticking out.

#21 Edited by granderojo (1897 posts) -

The whole point of the story is that you're trying to save Ellie from being harmed but within the game she's practically invincible and mostly undetectable by the enemies in the environment. The game is establishing a logic within the fiction that is essentially overwritten by the mechanics within the game.

The biggest problem I'm having with this so far isn't that a stretch of logic exists within the game but that the game never acknowledges this problem & pokes fun at itself as a result. You take any great ridiculous story, Star Wars for instance, & a protagonist oftentimes serve the role of mediator between narrator & audience to poke fun at the story. In Star Wars that character is Han Solo, making fun of how dumb the Jedi are as a concept. His crass humour breaks the ice of the absurdity that there are essential intergalactic samurai buddhists & sets the tone of the story.

So far Naughty Dog has done nothing like that with Joel & Elle in my game. So the answer to your question Grimmeh is that yes forgiving stealth sequences is a bad thing, but only when they don't make fun of themselves.

#22 Posted by Devil240Z (3850 posts) -

its easy. if you are in stealth your AI buds are in stealth too.