Giant Bomb Review

280 Comments

The Last of Us Review

5
  • PS3

Naughty Dog throws out its own rule book and challenges players to survive a harrowing but thrilling journey through a world forever changed by death and destruction.

Drained. Tired. Ready for a drink. These were my feelings as the credits rolled on Naughty Dog's latest. The Last of Us is a story about hope in a hopeless world, and the lengths we'll go to for those we love. Who is good? Who is bad? Do such distinctions matter in a world gone crazy? The Last of Us is a bold work, especially for a developer recently known for strapping us into cinematic roller coasters. The Last of Us is not fun, at least not in the traditional sense, and that's exactly why it's so interesting.

Some infected can't detect light, giving you a tiny advantage.

The Last of Us is Naughty Dog's take on the zombie apocalypse. Here, the disease is fungal. Breathe in nearby spores, and you'll turn. If you're bitten or scratched by an infected? Same fate. It's not clear where the infection came from, but like The Walking Dead and Metro 2033 before it, The Last of Us isn't concerned with exploring why the apocalypse came to be, but what happens in the days after. Humanity followed a familiar playbook when the crisis broke out. Sections of society have holed themselves up in military cities where citizens deal in ration tickets. The infection is still present, and there's no prospect of change. We're quickly introduced to Joel, who led a stressful but normal life with his daughter and brother before all hell broke loose. Twenty years later, Joel's changed. He's survived, but it's taken a toll on him. Joel's partnered with Tess, a firecracker who'll just as quickly bust your lip as help you across the street. The two have similar values, so they get along. A series of events put them in charge of Ellie, a young girl that needs to be transported to the Fireflies, a militia group trying to establish order.

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves remains one of this generation's most celebrated games. Bombastic, sarcastic, over-the-top, fun. It was Naughty Dog's legacy of technological prowess with a character of matched ambition. Uncharted also popularized the term ludonarrative dissonance, wherein the character portrayed in cutscenes doesn't match the one players control. Nathan Drake is an aloof everyman that's easy to relate to, a man one suspects doesn't take killing a man for granted. Yet, over the course of three games, Drake leaves thousands of bodies in his wake, and never bats an eye. We know why this disconnect exists: in service of fun. The gunplay in Uncharted was enjoyable, and fighting off waves of enemies was, besides platforming, the core gameplay. The series was also famous for its setpieces, orchestrations of madness and destruction on an unparalleled scale. You were often in control of these moments, and if you happened to mess up a simple jump, the sequence started over. A crumbling bridge is tense and exciting the first or second time around, not not nearly as much when playing it a tenth time.

The Last of Us rejects all of this. The Last of Us plays like Naughty Dog internalized the biggest design criticisms leveled against its last franchise and set out to make the anti-Uncharted. While The Last of Us retains Naughty Dog's signature ability to push hardware further than anyone else--a PlayStation 3 game has never looked better--it gives the player far more agency during the game's biggest moments, ratchets down the overall body count by a significant degree, and tries to make each kill worth a damn.

The developers achieve this by attaching weight and consequence to your actions. Early on, it's a brutal, difficult game. The more powerful infected have one-hit kills that aren't counterable until later, and a single pistol shot will lop off one-third of your health. Health does not regenerate in The Last of Us, and one must craft or collect new medical packs that are slowly applied in real-time before regaining any vigor. It's possible to clear sections of every threat, but that's a great way to wind up with no ammunition, little health, and not much else to show for it. In many situations, the best option is to run away. (It's possible to simply restart encounters, but I found this to quickly diminish the threat of being caught and having to improvise.) The Last of Us asks players to fight their usual compulsions when it comes to playing a video game focused on enemy confrontation, and make on-the-fly judgement calls that don't have clear risks or rewards when you initially take them. If you worry about checking every room and looking around every corner, have fun dying over and over again. Then again, some of the game's best crafting pieces, ammo, and other collectibles are hidden in those places. Is it worth the risk? Your call.

Ellie and Joel aren't friends when The Last of Us begins, and their relationship only grows more complex.

By holding down L2, Joel crouches to the floor and uses sound to gain a sense of what's around him, highlighted in black-and-white. It's not a supernatural ability, but a visual extension of Joel's 20 years of hardened experience. Joel's perception changes as the enemies move, and if an enemy hasn't yet made a sound, you'll have to place them in sight or prod them. Bricks and bottles are scattered around, and you'll use them often, as the infected and humans react to sound (sometimes to an exaggerated, unbelievable effect). Joel can and must use distractions to make quiet killing easier--players choose between a loud choke-out or shivving--or to sneak along. The same objects are useful on the offensive, as well. In one sequence, a building with six or seven enemies was too much for me to take on without using up most of my available pistol ammunition. One false move during a stealth kill later and everyone was alerted. Noticing the exit to my left, I ran. The exit itself was guarded by a beefy dude with a shotgun, though, and I tossed a brick at his face to stun him. This allowed me to run by, head around the corner, and avoid unnecessary combat with a whole room full of bad guys. Did I miss an opportunity to loot a safe or collect extra materials to upgrade my bat or build a bomb? Probably. But I also came out alive.

Staying alive is a balancing act that requires more than a steady aim and calculated movement. Crafting plays a huge role, one that comes with its own checks and balances. Players have a small amount of craftable items that unlock over the course of the game--molotov cocktails, health kits, smoke bombs, melee upgrades, others--but each requires multiple materials, and making one item will inevitably mean you cannot build another. Are you confident you'll make it through the next section without a scratch? Is it more important to kill the four infected blocking the way with a molotov cocktail? Like healing, crafting takes time, which is precious in The Last of Us. Once the bullets start flying or the infected start chasing, there are rarely moments to sit down, open your backpack, and wait for a bar to fill, signifying the creation of a new item. Crafting speed, healing speed, and other techniques can be upgraded by collecting medicine during the game, but nothing will make you all-powerful. Death is always around the corner.

Ellie is a key component during much of the game, as well. She's not just a character you talk to, but someone who takes part in the action. This would raise red flags in most games. Thankfully, it works fine--she's helpful. In addition to Ellie, there will be other characters following you around, shooting enemies, and hiding behind desks. They won't get in your way, and while it's a little weird when enemies don't notice these characters walking right in front of them, that's preferable to having them constantly messing up your approach. The characters are not in your control, but they're also useful and resourceful.

At times, The Last of Us feels like a classic survival horror game, and it prompted certain personal instincts to kick in. In games like this, I'll hoard everything, use very little, and find myself at the end of the game with a glut of items, weapons, and other stuff that the game never forced me into a position of using, so I never did. If the game isn't going to back me into a wall and force the use of precious cargo, I'm going to be cautious and make sure I'm stocked up. The Last of Us deeply constrains the player in the early hours, but if you're like me, that no longer becomes an issue in the latter half of the game. Joel is capable of holding more than half-a-dozen weapons at once, and while the game does an admirable job of ammo limiting certain weapons for long stretches of the game, I eventually hit a point where I wasn't thinking about the weapon I was wielding. The game's early hours are the most harrowing, and it's why I'd recommend players interested in a rougher experience consider dialing up the difficulty before diving in.

Maybe it's the nature of a lengthy video game, but despite its restraint, the bodies start to stack up in The Last of Us. Eventually, the violence is no longer appalling, the kills no longer shocking. It's partly due to Naughty Dog indulging in Uncharted-like setpieces that transform enemies into shooting galleries. One has dozens of guys swarming a sniper spot, and you're forced to kill them in a clinical and detached fashion at odds with what's come before it. And you have unlimited ammo. It's a moment engineered to feel indulgent, as the player has been slowly sneaking through a town to eliminate a sniper that's been a total jerk, but it doesn't work. When the last enemy had hit the ground, I was rolling my eyes instead of being relieved. But players may react to these moments differently, largely fueled by the agency Naughty Dog gives them in determining the kind of survivalist Joel is.

Born into a chaotic world, Ellie's learned to act above her age.

The emotions are heightened by the believable acting happening in-game and out. The performance capture techniques that made Drake, Sully, and friends come alive in Uncharted are put to terrific use in here, with Troy Baker and Ashley Johnson both fully committing to their roles as Joel and Ellie. Contrary to most games, Joel is not the player surrogate--Ellie is. You empathize with her, and she says what the player is thinking. When she tells Joel to fuck off, you want to give her a high-five. (At one point, you actually can press triangle and give Ellie a high-five!) Ellie can hold her own. Joel's perspective has been warped, and yet this is the guy you play as--the asshole. You don't choose how Joel acts. Naturally, there's much more to Joel that's explored as the story goes along--the man has his reasons for being bitter--and some of the best moments don't even happen in the cut-scenes. Every once and a while, Ellie (or another character) will have an icon appear above their head, suggesting an optional piece of dialogue. Often, these moments occur while Ellie is staring at a painting, poster, or another piece of scenery. Joel lived for years before the world imploded, while Ellie only knows chaos. These moments inform the larger fiction of The Last of Us, and bond Joel, Elile, and the player. If you choose to ignore these moments, Ellie comments on your decision to ignore her. It's a nice touch, and the interactions evolve as the game goes on. Early in the game, Ellie is learning how to whistle. By the end, she's gotten pretty good.

On top of all of this, Naughty Dog has built on the surprising success of Uncharted's multiplayer with factions mode in The Last of Us. You want to know the crazy thing, especially coming from a guy who usually can't give a crap about a game's multiplayer modes? It's great. The methodical, slow-paced gameplay from the single-player translates well to multiplayer. In both game modes, players are split into small teams, and working with one another is not only essential to survival match-to-match, but it plays into the larger metagame. In Factions, you're the leader of a small set of survivors just barely getting by. In order to unlock more perks and customization options, that group needs to get bigger, and as the days and weeks roll on, random incidents will occur to test your group's ability to cope. For players, this means trying to accomplish certain subgoals within matches, such as "x" number of melee kills. As the group gets bigger, it demands more resources. You only find those resources during matches, and you receive more of them if you're doing more than killing--healing others, gifting items, etc. There's even an interesting, non-spammy option for Facebook that names survivors after friends and family. One thing that kept with me, though, was multiplayer's focus on rewarding gruesome execution kills. When a player is almost dead, they go into a hunched state where a teammate can rescue them--or an enemy can end their life in a terrible way. Unlike single-player, there's no terrifying us-versus-them mentality contextualizing these alarming acts. Here, it's more points and a bothersome use of extreme violence.

The Last of Us is not simply Uncharted with zombies, but it couldn't exist without Naughty Dog having made Uncharted first, either. It's a dark adventure, one rarely filled with laughs or joy. There are bitter pills to swallow along the way, and nothing is taken for granted, not even characters. People live, people die. Sometimes it's fair, sometimes it's not. It's still a zombie game, but a sobering one. Take a deep breath.

Patrick Klepek on Google+
288 Comments
Edited by Nardak

Well i guess it is the Citizen Kane of video games. Thinking of buying PS3 just for this game.

Posted by maskedarcstrike

@patrickklepek: Hey Patrick under what conditions were journalists able to review the multiplayer on? Was it based upon MP events hosted by Naughty Dog? I'm just curious.

Posted by Dallas_Raines

Fuck yes, I love depressing narratives. Hopefully, this takes us a step closer to a Blue Valentine adventure game.

Posted by Darkstorn

I haven't booted up a console in many months, looks like Last of Us is a must-play!

Edited by Triumvir

It's full of of stars...

I can't believe I have to wait until Tuesday for this damn thing!

Posted by Vasper_Knight

Cool thanks PK. Going to read now

Edited by Triumvir

@yummylee said:

Huh, an 8.0 on gamespot... I look forward to the inevitable Feedbackula Last of Us episode!

McShea is a strange guy with stranger opinions on games, and one with whom I rarely agree. I'm a little surprised that he liked it at all. But you're right, that Feedbackula is going to be a barn burner.

Posted by Yummylee

@triumvir said:

It's full of of stars...

I can't believe I have to wait until Tuesday for this damn thing!

Friday actually ;) And by that I mean...

Next Friday.

Posted by LegendaryChopChop

Seems great. I don't usually read reviews but this one caught my attention.

I can't wait for my copy of the Suvival Edition to come in.

Edited by Triumvir

@yummylee said:

@triumvir said:

It's full of of stars...

I can't believe I have to wait until Tuesday for this damn thing!

Friday actually ;) And by that I mean...

Next Friday.

O_O The horror...

If I didn't need to play this game, I'd just end it right now.

Edited by Stinky51012

Gonna pick this up on 360

Posted by Vrikk

Any idea how long this game is? (I did a Ctrl-F search without success, FYI.)

Edited by DeviTiffany

Sounds pretty good. The comparisons to old school survival horror sounds like the best part, I miss that sort of stuff.


I never understood the complaints of enemies turning into shooting galleries or whatever though. Over 20 years of playing video games and I'm still not tired of violently murdering my fellow man in many horrific ways. Really, that's one of the major perks of playing video games.

Posted by lordofultima

Gonna pick this up on 360

Gonna be pretty difficult.

Edited by Yummylee
@vrikk said:

Any idea how long this game is? (I did a Ctrl-F search without success, FYI.)

Probably 12 hours or so -- your average action/adventure game length. Naughty Dog have gone on record in saying that it's their longest game ever to date too so, I'm sure it's got a meaty campaign in there even when you put aside its multiplayer offerings.

Edited by Zevvion

I will be getting this. I haven't played on my PS3 in ages, but in times like these I'm always happy to own all platforms.

Posted by Patman99

Gonna pick this up on 360

Gonna pick this up on iOS

Posted by Live_Free_or_Die

@vrikk: in his review, Adam Sessler said it was 17 hours.

Edited by Zecks23

Wow glad to hear! Was worried this might be a disappointment but I'm even more excited for it now!

Posted by Deusoma

It's a very good read, a good review from Patrick, and the game seems to have an interesting concept, but I've gotta say, depressing storylines are about as appealing to me as being set on fire. If the game isn't any fun to actually play, then I have no interest in doing so.

On a side note, by the time I finished the first paragraph, I felt confident in predicting that the player character dies at the end of the game. Just a hunch.

Posted by patrickklepek

@vrikk: Took me 16 hours, I think?

Staff
Posted by patrickklepek

@maskedarcstrike: They had day-long sessions over two days. I spent a whole day playing through the various modes, probably four or five hours. Mixture of devs and writers.

Staff
Posted by Nettacki

@patman99 said:

@stinky51012 said:

Gonna pick this up on 360

Gonna pick this up on iOS

Gonna pick this up on PC

Posted by THEBIGZED

@patrickklepek: The way you said 'various modes' got me hopeful that there's more than two modes. Then again, maybe I'm a tad desperate.

Posted by Homeslice

My goodness. If you ever wanted to see a realtime, seemingly unending stream of hate, head on over to Gamespot's 8.0 review. And it's a certainty that none of those people have played it!

I suspect, rightly or wrongly, that the 95 on Metacritic offsets any "damage" that Gamespot's review could elicit.

Edited by Redbullet685

Campaign seems to be around 15 hours. Even ND said this a few months ago.

I cannot wait for next Friday. I have been looking forward to this since the initial announcement. And I'm glad to hear that the multiplayer is actually good. I've lost many hours to Uncharted 2+3's multiplayer over the last few years.

Online
Edited by Niacine

What a exceptional review Patrick! Cheers, can not wait for this game to hit my ps3

Posted by THRICE_604

My goodness. If you ever wanted to see a realtime, seemingly unending stream of hate, head on over to Gamespot's 8.0 review. And it's a certainty that none of those people have played it!

I suspect, rightly or wrongly, that the 95 on Metacritic offsets any "damage" that Gamespot's review could elicit.

It can't be any worse than Phil Kollar's 7.5 over at Polygon. I'm all for reviewers having their opinions but Phil's biggest complaints were the atmosphere made him feel bad and that a third person shooter from Naughty Dog is still a third person shooter from Naughty Dog. I have a hard time seeing those as legitimate complaints. That is kind of the point of this game and Naughty Dog has not mislead and set it up to be anything but.

Edited by CornBREDX

The review reads more like a 4 (and I say this understanding Giantbombs rating system where in 5 stars does not mean the game is perfect) but still, seems like another fantastic game from Naughty Dog. I do wonder, though, how well it will do being that it's (at least it sounds like) so different in tone to what they usually do.

Although, it does sound like they pulled off multiplayer so that might help.

Anyway, the whining around the internet at sites I go to (well, ok, mainly Gamespot and Polygon) when this game doesn't get a perfect score is pretty nonsensical. I don't know why but I am enjoying reading it. I mean, the game hasn't even come out, yet. These people don't know what they will think of the game- they haven't played it.

I guess it's that rubber necking thing. I cant help but look at people being idiots and finding it funny.

Edited by ninjalegend

This sounds great. I'm glad the resident horror enthusiast reviewed this game. I am also happy to hear that they tried to tackle the ludonarritive dissonance that hurt my immersion in Uncharted 2 and completely ruined Uncharted 3 for me, as I just had about enough of it. What a week this is going to be. With the electronic 3 and this game, I'm glad I took my vacation that week.

Edited by Mofaz

The gameplay for this title seems overwhelmingly shallow and mired in the mirrored mechanics of board-game rules, where you repeat the same essential minor playable objectives over and over and the game makes little attempt to incorporate it into its narrative beyond a simple blanket statement regarding the player character.

It's pretty hard to believe that after Spec Ops, where a simple thing like the melee kills becoming far more brutal and short and vicious as the game goes on, isn't something that every developer trying to create a good story has adopted. It's simple gameplay mechanics reflecting development in the character. The audio barks altering was another example, the appearance of the PC carrying a symbolic nature was another. The blatant gruesome reward mechanics of executions was another. That game was sprinkled with sly awareness of its own stark nihilism. AAA designers can't do that by design because it immediately implies that something lacking in fun needs to be created in order to supply legitimate negative emotion.

When has violence in a videogame ever been uncomfortable on purpose? I usually shrink back because it's excessive, not because it's disturbing in the context of the story. It's pretty damning that games that try to make violence disturbing in the end simply desensitize the player instead. In Spec Ops that was the purpose, absolutely and entirely. In this, the game/player interaction is most infinitely more shallow in the desire for a blockbuster narrative.

Games are interactive, this isn't the first time myopic gameplay separated from the actual narrative has drowned a game into indulgent anti-art.

Just look at Bioshock: Infinite, the very gameplay and violence destroys the game's narrative, it's as though developers try their hardest to sabotage their own narratives by making them sickeningly worthless in the context of anything worth looking at.

I just don't see this being any different, and as such I'm not very confident with the 5/5s, this medium still can't create a good story 1 times out of 10, and this looks like another one of the 9.

Posted by Humanity

@yummylee said:

@triumvir said:

It's full of of stars...

I can't believe I have to wait until Tuesday for this damn thing!

Friday actually ;) And by that I mean...

Next Friday.

International release ;^}

Posted by Yummylee

@humanity said:

@yummylee said:

@triumvir said:

It's full of of stars...

I can't believe I have to wait until Tuesday for this damn thing!

Friday actually ;) And by that I mean...

Next Friday.

International release ;^}

No, it's to be a worldwide release for the 14th of June.

Edited by Jaytow

@stimpack said:

@jaytow: but devalued by who? Do you think that what they say has any real bearing on the review itself? What impact do you think it has?

Also my point was that the person was simply saying that he believes the reviewer has weird standards. I see what you're saying, and I agree that there is most certainly a vocal and hostile minority out there, but this guy wasn't doing that.

At some point, the honest answer for both reviewers and their critics is that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. The only wrong answer is to be a dick.

Mentioning the Fable review was an attempt to devalue the opinions expressed in the Last Of Us review, which he doesn't seem happy with.

He is not a terrible person, I am not making him out to be one but bringing the competence of a journalist into question every time they don't give a game the score you wanted it to receive is dumb.

Edited by Stimpack

@jaytow: So a person's previous work has no bearing on their future work? If you've hated every Uwe Boll movie, would you then be eager and trusting that his next movie will be any good?

If the game, in his opinion, sucked, then that's his opinion. If I see someone do something that I disagree with, it has an effect on whatever else they do in my opinion. Nothing is set in stone, and it doesn't invalidate his review, but it is reason to take pause.

I feel like mentioning the reviewer's previous work is important. I think you're mistaking this for "whining" about the score he's given, when he's simply stating that the guy's tastes might be different than what you or I are looking for.

I think the bigger issue is the reliance on some random number to give us the information we need. Numbers are useless, look at the actual work.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I really just don't think he did anything wrong to warrant your reaction.

Edited by dudeglove

only ps3? Bah.

Edited by Dross

@patman99 said:

@stinky51012 said:

Gonna pick this up on 360

Gonna pick this up on iOS

Gonna pick this up on Amiga.

Edited by Jaytow

@stimpack said:

@jaytow: So a person's previous work has no bearing on their future work? If you've hated every Uwe Boll movie, would you then be eager and trusting that his next movie will be any good?

If the game, in his opinion, sucked, then that's his opinion. If I see someone do something that I disagree with, it has an effect on whatever else they do in my opinion. Nothing is set in stone, and it doesn't invalidate his review, but it is reason to take pause.

I feel like mentioning the reviewer's previous work is important. I think you're mistaking this for "whining" about the score he's given, when he's simply stating that the guy's tastes might be different than what you or I are looking for.

I think the bigger issue is the reliance on some random number to give us the information we need. Numbers are useless, look at the actual work.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I really just don't think he did anything wrong to warrant your reaction.

First of all lets stop acting asif I went to his house and shot him. Nothing terrible has happened here.

Mentioning the previous work of a journalist is fine, that's not my problem. My problem is with the shit storm this guy will receive for not sharing the opinions of 99% of the other journalists that have reviewed this game.

If somebody posts a review that you disagree with (lets put aside the fact that this guy hasn't played the game yet) then it's fine to disagree with it and let us know why you do so but what's annoying me is the fable review being used as an attempt to write off the last of us review, this is made even more annoying by the fact that none of us have actually played the finished game yet.

Edited by Humanity

@yummylee said:

@humanity said:

@yummylee said:

@triumvir said:

It's full of of stars...

I can't believe I have to wait until Tuesday for this damn thing!

Friday actually ;) And by that I mean...

Next Friday.

International release ;^}

No, it's to be a worldwide release for the 14th of June.

Iz wut I meant mate

Edited by Sveppi

Played the demo and was stunned by the amount of tension in the encounters. Great review, can't wait to pick the game up.

Posted by Yummylee
Edited by Stimpack

@jaytow: I never said you did anything terrible to him, but I am saying that you're severely exaggerating the situation. It feels like you wanted to complain about something that had nothing to do with him. You obviously have very certain perceptions, and you've rolled him into them. There's no reason to walk around with a hair trigger in-case someone comes along and points out a positive review of what many believe is a crappy game.

He didn't "write off" the guy's review. He just said that the guy has weird taste "if you ask him". There was absolutely nothing unfair with what he said, and that's why I addressed you in the first place. Not to argue the critiques of journalism or anything of the sort. My point was that you are calling out the wrong person, and that's not cool.

*edit* but, with that said, I think the discussion has gone on long enough. I just wanted to get my point across, and I feel I've done the best I can in attempting to accomplish that. At any rate, I hope the game is good. I'll more than likely pick it up when it's released.

Posted by PoisonJam7

If I had to pick one sentence from this review that sold me on the game, it was this one:

(At one point, you actually can press triangle and give Ellie a high-five!)

Patrick Kelpek
Posted by sonicrift

I'd really like to know what Brad thinks of this game.

If I hated Zombii U, will I instantly hate this? The checkpointing in a video of a demo I saw looked pretty fair. Death doesn't mean Game Over, right?

Posted by gunslingerNZ

@thrice_604: Haha Polygon, that site just makes me glad that Justin McElroy has other, better things going on in his life...

Edited by Humanity
Edited by THEBIGZED
@jaytow said:

@stimpack said:

@jaytow: So a person's previous work has no bearing on their future work? If you've hated every Uwe Boll movie, would you then be eager and trusting that his next movie will be any good?

If the game, in his opinion, sucked, then that's his opinion. If I see someone do something that I disagree with, it has an effect on whatever else they do in my opinion. Nothing is set in stone, and it doesn't invalidate his review, but it is reason to take pause.

I feel like mentioning the reviewer's previous work is important. I think you're mistaking this for "whining" about the score he's given, when he's simply stating that the guy's tastes might be different than what you or I are looking for.

I think the bigger issue is the reliance on some random number to give us the information we need. Numbers are useless, look at the actual work.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I really just don't think he did anything wrong to warrant your reaction.

First of all lets stop acting asif I went to his house and shot him. Nothing terrible has happened here.

Mentioning the previous work of a journalist is fine, that's not my problem. My problem is with the shit storm this guy will receive for not sharing the opinions of 99% of the other journalists that have reviewed this game.

If somebody posts a review that you disagree with (lets put aside the fact that this guy hasn't played the game yet) then it's fine to disagree with it and let us know why you do so but what's annoying me is the fable review being used as an attempt to write off the last of us review, this is made even more annoying by the fact that none of us have actually played the finished game yet.

Okay, now if I saw some reviewer give The Godfather an 8 and then went through his reviews and saw that he gave Twilight a similar score I'd probably conclude that perhaps his opinions are different from mine, or at least come from a different perspective. That's not to say they are necessarily wrong, but simply differ from mine and perhaps the majority of others.

True, I have not played the game, not even the demo, so there is a small chance of me maybe agreeing with everything that reviewer said. The fact that his review score differs from the vast majority (same could be said of the Fable review) simply shows that his opinions may not be the same as 99% of others. Nothing wrong with that though. It's worth noting, however, that in the end reviews from publications that cater to the masses should basically tell the reader whether the game is worth buying or not. If you differ too much from what most of others are saying then you may be misleading most of your readers. That's assuming the common consensus is somewhere near the truth.

Edited by Gerhabio

I NEED this