Why TLoU's gunplay is revolutionary

#1 Posted by MirkoS77 (13 posts) -

Time and again I've seen people bemoan TLoU's gunplay, saying that it's everything from average, to poor, to downright terrible, and I can't for the life of me understand these opinions. I've come to view it as nothing but revolutionary and the most significant refinement of TPS genre mechanics seen in years.

The guns feel visceral, and there's a tangible feeling of weight and impact, sure. But these are simply ancillary components of one core change that distinguishes TLoU from every other TPS on the market so far that I've played: getting shot has ramifications that extend past the point of lifebars. When Joel is hit he gets knocked out of cover, onto his ass, and control is immediately stripped out of the players' hands. He's rendered uncontrollable as he recovers which leaves him vulnerable for a short period (I've counted up to 4-5 seconds on survivor, but the length seems to vary) to be attacked again. While this may seem trivial at first and is not really a concern on easier difficulties, on the hardest it's unforgiving. As such, this seemingly small alteration fundamentally changes the way a player has to approach engagements, and this is part of why I believe people dislike it so much. Players in TLoU are no longer bullet sponges, which is why I find complaints of enemies being the same highly amusing as people don't even acknowledge the fact that they themselves are.

But I digress....

It's because of this change that the firefights now enforce a cat and mouse game, almost a lethal dance in a sense. It's now just as important to not get hit as it is to hit, and heavily punishes poor defensive play as much as it rewards a good offense. Suppression fire is now a viable tactic if executed right with capable AI, and enemies utilizing it to aid in flanking would not be possible without it. Running across an open area for new cover is now a gamble that has to be given more consideration than simply a question of "how many pills/health paks/time for health regen do I have when I get there?". The days of rushing enemies head on or across lines of fire with the only detrimental impact of being shot is the screen turning an increasingly darker shade of red until death occurs is old news. Such mechanics are superficial, antiquated, and ultimately inferior. TLoU takes the penalty for getting shot and shoves it directly INTO the game and players' hands instead of cheaply and superficially overlaying it on top of the TV screen. This is why I find it to be revolutionary. I don't know if it's the first console TPS to do this, but I've tried and can't think of another one.

I'm so impressed at what Naughty Dog has accomplished here that I find myself holding a bit of resentment towards them because I can no longer go back and play my favorite TPSes and enjoy them nearly as much as I used to when I'm now aware that one whole side of the equation is absent. Any game that attempts to capture the intensity and exhiliration of firefights needs to account for equality on both sides in terms of the consequences of not only shooting, but also of being shot, as that's precisely what defines a firefight in the first place. TLoU has exemplified this perfectly. I shouldn't be able to unload into an enemy and have him not be able to shoot back while he's being hit, but be able to myself. It's not nearly as tense nor fun.

Never have I seen the exchange of gunfire modelled so well and made so enjoyable as it is in TLoU, and I'm becoming frustrated by people not being able to see what's been done here. I see nothing but brilliance marred by a tad of poor execution. The hilarious thing is, it's not even a dedicated shooter and I find it ludicrous that Naughty Dog has evolved TPS mechanics further in one game than many other developers dedicated to the genre have failed to accomplish since its inception. I'm hoping other studios take notice on what's been done and incorporate it into future titles. I realize many would heavily disagree, but now I want the Uncharteds, I want the Max Paynes, and I want the GeoWs to take the next step towards a more engrossing and tension filled TPS experience.

#2 Edited by csl316 (8113 posts) -

The game was super tense, so it didn't always seem "fun." But it was very well-designed and I felt it fit the game perfectly. Everything mattered, it was brutal, it was uncomfortable. You feel sort of savage as you finish the last guy and reflect on the carnage that just transpired.

I remember the first encounter on hard. Got shot a few times, stumbled, and immediately recognized that this was something unique. It's so different from the flow of many other third-person games. It was a risky move, but I commend Naughty Dog for putting together such a combat system knowing full well that some people would hate it.

Though I don't think this style should show up in every game.

#3 Posted by cannedstingray (387 posts) -

Didn't read your entire post, But after the first few hours of it, I REALLY enjoyed playing the game. You have just enough in your inventory to deal with an encounter, but have to constantly switch up weapons and technique, which keeps you on your toes. That was probably my favorite game of the year.

#4 Edited by mlarrabee (2886 posts) -

I'm a bullet-sponge in most games because I have to be; if I died from one or two shots in most shooters I would quickly put them down. Games are designed to equip the player to the task, because it they were anything close to realistic ninety-nine percent of players would never make it past the second encounter--how many people do you know who have been attacked with lethal intent twice and survived?

I started TLoU on hard, and I felt like everyone had too much health. Joel took too much damage before going down (though still not much) but the enemies also took three shotgun rounds to the face before dying. I'd rather it be the high stakes game I was lead to believe it was, with a single mistake being costly for EITHER party.

Right now I'm putting up with the gameplay for the story. That wasn't unexpected since the Uncharted games were exactly the same: phenomenal atmosphere, worldbuilding, and storytelling supported by adequate gameplay. Frankly, I wish Naughty Dog would just make a CG animated movie.

#5 Posted by HatKing (5821 posts) -

I'm with you. And I actually think the sound design in that game did a lot to give guns impact. Not sure if it's just the way I have my speakers set up, but a gunshot was loud in that game. And I don't mean typical action movie loud. I meant, it sounded like it carried consequence. It was alarming the first time I had to pull off a round because I slipped up. I got used to it, and eventually it became mundane again. But I think that also played along with the arc of the story and how they're sort of desensitizing you to violence throughout the thing.

#6 Posted by thebunnyhunter (1354 posts) -

I did really enjoy the shooting and all the mechanics around it, and lately i have been wanting to redownlaod it just for the multiplayer. Is the multiplayer aspect still going strong? id hate to download 25gbs for nothing

#7 Edited by believer258 (11637 posts) -

You missed out on the part where the lack of ammo requires stealth, and the stealth becomes extremely predictable and repetitive oh, say, ten hours into this fifteen hour game.

I played it on Hard the first time. Fighting humans was the best part of the game, especially at about the halfway mark (end of Summer, Fall). Combat required an interesting level of improvisation, and had the game kept that up, it would have stayed interesting throughout. Instead, I could just look at an area and tell you that I was going to be attacked, where they were going to attack from, where I was going to hide, and so on. No new wrinkles, new weapons, new ideas, just the same old "hide behind something until guy passes, run up and knock him out, rinse, repeat". And the last parts of the game are so fucking stingy on ammo and supplies that mixing things up like I could in the middle of the game just wasn't an option at all. That's not fun. That's boring.

By Winter I was just plain tired of the game. Get to the point already! Oh, and only giving you three bullets when trying to fight off hordes of enemies is not good game design. Neither is making you fight a bullet sponge boss where the zombies coming in might supply you with one or two bullets. This is to say nothing of the rest of the Infected parts of the game, which get tiresome even before the human fights do.

Also, why can't Naughty Dog write good console aiming code? Getting headshots still feels too loose and I still feel like I'm wrestling with the right analog stick more than it's working with me. Might be due to me playing a lot more PC games these days. Insert master race meme here if you want to, but I've never gone back to Halo or even Resistance 1 or 3 and felt like I had trouble aiming.

For the record, I gave The Last of Us four stars in the user review section. But calling its gameplay "revolutionary" in any way is pretty silly. It's ignorant of other good third person shooter mechanics (Gears of War, Tomb Raider), and it's ignorant of other good stealth games (Dishonored, Deus Ex Human Revolution).

EDIT: All right, I'll confess, I didn't read your entire post. But I just started re-reading it and I got to this sentence:

It's now just as important to not get hit as it is to hit, and heavily punishes poor defensive play as much as it rewards a good offense

This is true of any decently balanced game on its hardest difficulty. Go play Gears of War or Halo on their hardest difficulties. Better yet, go play FEAR or something else where your health doesn't refill.

#8 Edited by Mycroft_Ampersand (75 posts) -

I was very surprised by how much I enjoyed the encounters in this game. I knew that Naughty Dog would be up to the story part of the game, but I have never enjoyed actually playing any of the Uncharted series so I didn't think this game would be much different.

My biggest complaints about the shooting in this game aren't actually about the controls at all but are some of the design behind the game. I felt that there were too many weapons for the survival aspect and the scarcity that they were trying to convey versus being an action hero. It would have been better in my opinion to stick with shotgun, rifle, bow, revolver and probably another handgun with the rest (melee, nail bomb, molotov, etc.) being the same. Otherwise, I didn't like that you could max out ammo as I felt like it pulled you out of the world they were trying to build. No one in their right mind would go "oh, I have nine rifle bullets. I won't bother picking up these three then".

But actually moving Joel around the areas and picking guys off from either stealth or if you messed up felt great and the encounters were appropriately tense. The first time I played through the game only the final underpass area in Salt Lake City really seemed too easy and that was because there were simply so many options for how to get through the infected (and the human enemies were better anyway).

#9 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5339 posts) -

The gunplay was certainly new for multiplayer's sake, single player it just sort of served the story which was fine; but it was still possible to be good enough at it to have a power trip at times. Just a more murdery visceral power trip.

#10 Edited by MirkoS77 (13 posts) -

I'm a bullet-sponge in most games because I have to be; if I died from one or two shots in most shooters I would quickly put them down. Games are designed to equip the player to the task, because it they were anything close to realistic ninety-nine percent of players would never make it past the second encounter--how many people do you know who have been attacked with lethal intent twice and survived?

I started TLoU on hard, and I felt like everyone had too much health. Joel took too much damage before going down (though still not much) but the enemies also took three shotgun rounds to the face before dying. I'd rather it be the high stakes game I was lead to believe it was, with a single mistake being costly for EITHER party.

Right now I'm putting up with the gameplay for the story. That wasn't unexpected since the Uncharted games were exactly the same: phenomenal atmosphere, worldbuilding, and storytelling supported by adequate gameplay. Frankly, I wish Naughty Dog would just make a CG animated movie.

TLoU's gunfights were are far from realistic, but gave enough penalty so that the player needed to change the way they played the game from traditional TPSes. My point being, I'm glad to finally have a shooter that doesn't just fade my screen to red when hit and instead introduces control penalties. That's not necessarily realistic, but it helps enforce the feeling of visceral brutality that gunfights have.

#11 Posted by MirkoS77 (13 posts) -

@hatking said:

I'm with you. And I actually think the sound design in that game did a lot to give guns impact. Not sure if it's just the way I have my speakers set up, but a gunshot was loud in that game. And I don't mean typical action movie loud. I meant, it sounded like it carried consequence. It was alarming the first time I had to pull off a round because I slipped up. I got used to it, and eventually it became mundane again. But I think that also played along with the arc of the story and how they're sort of desensitizing you to violence throughout the thing.

Agreed, the sound design was incredible. Shots oftentimes had me jumping and played a large part in conveying a feeling of heftiness to the fights.

#12 Edited by wallee321 (76 posts) -

I really liked the extra holsters and backpack system in real time. That seemed like nice step-up from all the two weapon gun systems' or two guns + pistol that have been coming out, since Halo.

#13 Posted by kishinfoulux (2255 posts) -

Gunplay...revolutionary...

I...don't have anything nice to say so I'll just refrain, but will leave with a hearty "LOL".

#14 Posted by wemibelec90 (1552 posts) -

@mirkos77: I've always felt that Naughty Dog makes shooters that are absolutely terrible to play, at least for me. Something about the feel of the aiming has always felt entirely wrong to me, in everything from the first Uncharted to The Last of Us. It's so bad that I feel like I have to force myself through these games, even if I really enjoy the other parts of them. While I agree with you that it is a mechanically sound game, I just can't reconcile my distaste for the feel of the game's shooting.

#15 Edited by Lava (661 posts) -

I really really enjoyed playing this game. I loved it. It felt awesome to me. In a way that I felt in control like I hadn't before in some other games. It felt weighty and like every shot mattered. I didn't just blind fire all the time like I would in, say, an Uncharted game. But I would work my way through every combat situation. It was tough but I really liked it.

Being shot and having to deal with getting hit meant I had to adapt and change what I was doing. The slow addition to various new weapons was also well paced for me. Adding holsters to your backpack by crafting and stuff and not just having a weapon wheel was cool. I liked it. I know all these ideas aren't revolutionary but it all felt so streamlined and well put together that it worked well.

People can have their own tastes in gameplay styles and I'm sure there are a lot of people who didn't enjoy playing the game. But I did. I loved playing and experiencing this game. They went hand in hand for me.

#16 Posted by mems1224 (177 posts) -

It wasn't revolutionary. It wasn't even good. The gameplay overall was pretty mediocre

#17 Edited by MirkoS77 (13 posts) -

@kishinfoulux said:

Gunplay...revolutionary...

I...don't have anything nice to say so I'll just refrain, but will leave with a hearty "LOL".

Getting shot removes player agency. No other TPS has done this before. If that's not a revolutionary step, why? People can argue they don't like the feeling of the shooting, reticule sway, etc, but no one has named me one other TPS that does what I noted in my post. It fundamentally changes the way the game is played, and until I hear of another game that's done this, I can't see it as anything but revolutionary.

#18 Posted by awesomeusername (4154 posts) -

I don't know about revolutionary but it was really damn good. I enjoyed playing it and my first play through was on hard so it was always really intense when I had to pull out a gun. Missing a shot always had me crapping myself and thinking whether I could spare another bullet. I loved the gameplay. People who hated it are loco.

Gosh do I really want to play TLOU again. I'll have to play it after I play the Ellie DLC coming out.

#19 Edited by Blommer4 (191 posts) -

Gunplay...revolutionary...

I...don't have anything nice to say so I'll just refrain, but will leave with a hearty "LOL".

#20 Edited by Icemael (6312 posts) -

@mirkos77 said:

@kishinfoulux said:

Gunplay...revolutionary...

I...don't have anything nice to say so I'll just refrain, but will leave with a hearty "LOL".

Getting shot removes player agency. No other TPS has done this before. If that's not a revolutionary step, why? People can argue they don't like the feeling of the shooting, reticule sway, etc, but no one has named me one other TPS that does what I noted in my post. It fundamentally changes the way the game is played, and until I hear of another game that's done this, I can't see it as anything but revolutionary.

There's nothing "revolutionary" or even new about knock-back. It's been in games since the 1980s, and it's certainly not new in third-person action games, either: for instance, getting shot always knocks you over in Resident Evil 6 (and unlike in The Last of Us, it does that even if you're not in cover) and specific attacks like rockets and cannon fire knocking you over is in countless shooters. And if you want to talk about third-person shooters where "getting shot has ramifications that extend past the point of life bars," Vanquish does that to a far greater extent that The Last of Us. Not only is there knock-back on a lot of the heavier enemy shots -- getting damaged enough drains the energy bar you use for key actions like boosting, boost dodging, melee attacks and slow-motion aiming.

#21 Posted by Chrjz (320 posts) -

It wasn't until I saw Naughty Dog that I knew what game you were talking about... It would have helped if you put this in the game's subforum.

I'm only pointing this out because it's one of my pet peeves when people write in acronyms and assume that others will know what they are talking about.

#22 Posted by MirkoS77 (13 posts) -

@icemael said:

@mirkos77 said:

@kishinfoulux said:

Gunplay...revolutionary...

I...don't have anything nice to say so I'll just refrain, but will leave with a hearty "LOL".

Getting shot removes player agency. No other TPS has done this before. If that's not a revolutionary step, why? People can argue they don't like the feeling of the shooting, reticule sway, etc, but no one has named me one other TPS that does what I noted in my post. It fundamentally changes the way the game is played, and until I hear of another game that's done this, I can't see it as anything but revolutionary.

There's nothing "revolutionary" or even new about knock-back. It's been in games since the 1980s, and it's certainly not new in third-person action games, either: for instance, getting shot always knocks you over in Resident Evil 6 (and unlike in The Last of Us, it does that even if you're not in cover) and specific attacks like rockets and cannon fire knocking you over is in countless shooters. And if you want to talk about third-person shooters where "getting shot has ramifications that extend past the point of life bars," Vanquish does that to a far greater extent that The Last of Us. Not only is there knock-back on a lot of the heavier enemy shots -- getting damaged enough drains the energy bar you use for key actions like boosting, boost dodging, melee attacks and slow-motion aiming.

Since the 80's? What "3rd" person shooter in the 80s had knock back exactly?

There's a difference between showing knock back animations while still letting the player retain control, and removing control entirely which is what TLoU does. And yes, Joel gets knocked down when he's out of cover all the time. Try rushing an enemy while being continually shot and see how long you last in the open. And of course I'm referring specifically to small-arms fire, not explosives. Both RE 6 and Vanquish have knock back but it's so inconsequential as to be irrelevant. You can stand wide out in the open running around while soaking up shots with minor flinches when hit. Joel can be on the ground for up to 5 seconds uncontrollable if he's hit with a shotgun blast at close range. You know this doesn't happen in RE6, Vanquish, or in any "games since the 1980s". Please.

Fact is, you can approach and play Vanquish and RE 6 just like any TPS that came before them. Can you play TLoU like them and survive? No. There's a huge difference.

#23 Posted by PSNgamesun (394 posts) -

Never understood the hate for Last Of Us gameplay I thought it was great intense stuff.

#24 Posted by bigjeffrey (4789 posts) -

Why The Last Of Us Gears Of War's gunplay is revolutionary.

#25 Posted by TwoLines (2788 posts) -

@mirkos77 said:

@icemael said:

@mirkos77 said:

@kishinfoulux said:

Gunplay...revolutionary...

I...don't have anything nice to say so I'll just refrain, but will leave with a hearty "LOL".

Getting shot removes player agency. No other TPS has done this before. If that's not a revolutionary step, why? People can argue they don't like the feeling of the shooting, reticule sway, etc, but no one has named me one other TPS that does what I noted in my post. It fundamentally changes the way the game is played, and until I hear of another game that's done this, I can't see it as anything but revolutionary.

There's nothing "revolutionary" or even new about knock-back. It's been in games since the 1980s, and it's certainly not new in third-person action games, either: for instance, getting shot always knocks you over in Resident Evil 6 (and unlike in The Last of Us, it does that even if you're not in cover) and specific attacks like rockets and cannon fire knocking you over is in countless shooters. And if you want to talk about third-person shooters where "getting shot has ramifications that extend past the point of life bars," Vanquish does that to a far greater extent that The Last of Us. Not only is there knock-back on a lot of the heavier enemy shots -- getting damaged enough drains the energy bar you use for key actions like boosting, boost dodging, melee attacks and slow-motion aiming.

Since the 80's? What "3rd" person shooter in the 80s had knock back exactly?

There's a difference between showing knock back animations while still letting the player retain control, and removing control entirely which is what TLoU does. And yes, Joel gets knocked down when he's out of cover all the time. Try rushing an enemy while being continually shot and see how long you last in the open. And of course I'm referring specifically to small-arms fire, not explosives. Both RE 6 and Vanquish have knock back but it's so inconsequential as to be irrelevant. You can stand wide out in the open running around while soaking up shots with minor flinches when hit. Joel can be on the ground for up to 5 seconds uncontrollable if he's hit with a shotgun blast at close range. You know this doesn't happen in RE6, Vanquish, or in any "games since the 1980s". Please.

Fact is, you can approach and play Vanquish and RE 6 just like any TPS that came before them. Can you play TLoU like them and survive? No. There's a huge difference.

You can't play Vanquish like other TPS games, you'd die all the time, especially on hard.

Also, revolutionairy seems a bit much for such a small game mechanic. It's a great idea, gives the combat more weight and at least TRIES to fix the ol' issue of unrealistic combat, but you're overstating its importance. I mean, realistically- it's not going to revolutionize video games. I'd say it's an interesting and fresh approach to the gunplay, but, to quote Mr. Wolf: let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet- there are some problems with aiming and the game can get repetitive.

I do like the bold statement though.

Online
#26 Posted by tread311 (352 posts) -

The actual feel of the gun play was never my issue with it. Every time I entered an area that was filled with waist-to-chest high cover that screamed "combat arena" causing all of the tension and immersion to evaporate was my problem.

#27 Posted by TobbRobb (4579 posts) -

Oh yeah. I just love popping out of cover to shoot someone that won't die and immediately getting shot. I love having mobility be a key factor when you are slow and clunky as fuck. Isn't it just fun that all the animations take forever and all look the same so melee and stealth is tedious as shit? It's also great how you are on the same terms healthwise with the enemies, except there are 25 of them in the area and only one of you.

So much greatness.

#28 Edited by Scroll (593 posts) -

I can think of a few examples that have animation priority especially when being shot but this game does present that mechanic in a satisfying way to be fair.

Online
#29 Posted by Abendlaender (2764 posts) -

That's "revolutionary"? Really?

#30 Posted by TobbRobb (4579 posts) -

Wait, people say there is problems with the aiming? I will bitch and moan about the gameplay all week. But aiming was seriously never a big issue. The sway was pretty minimal to begin with and you could make it even less noticeable with skill points.

#31 Posted by Humanity (8811 posts) -

I don't know what was the point of making gunplay more realistic when enemies can still take several chest shots while barely flinching and come at you. Either give me fully realistic gunplay, with sway and everything AND realistic damage, or just make it arcadey all the way through. I don't mind the damage swinging both ways either - I'm fine with dying from a single chest shot or getting severely crippled from a leg wound, IF the same way occur for the AI. This would make gunplay actually interesting and tactical as opposed to a sad inevitability that plays out in the most boring way imaginable.

#32 Posted by RonGalaxy (2872 posts) -

You've put into words what I've felt about the game since day one. Thank you for coming up with a proper explanation/breakdown of why the gameplay really is great.

#33 Posted by Icemael (6312 posts) -

@mirkos77: I didn't say it's been in third-person shooters since the 1980s. Try actually reading what I wrote.

Also, I don't know how you played these games (the way you talk about them, I doubt you've even played them at all), but having played all three on Hard or above, I can say that getting knocked over is far more frequent and lethal an issue in Resident Evil 6 and Vanquish than in The Last of Us, and that's ignoring all the other penalties you suffer in Vanquish.

lol dude. Maybe if you play them on Easy, or "play" them on Youtube.

The Last of Us is a great game, but there is not a single even remotely revolutionary thing about its mechanics. The way you talk about it, I get the feeling you have barely played any action games at all. "Ramifications that extend past the point of lifebars" is nothing new in third-person shooters, as I've already pointed out, and most of the other things you praise (you're not a bullet sponge, you can't just blindly rush enemies etc.) can be found in pretty much any action game as long as you kick the difficulty up enough. Try recklessly running around out in the open in Gears of War on Insane, or play the recent Splinter Cell games on the higher difficulty settings and see if they don't "enforce a cat and mouse game".

#34 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3751 posts) -
@icemael said:

lol dude. Maybe if you play them on Easy, or "play" them on Youtube.

The Last of Us is a great game, but there is not a single even remotely revolutionary thing about its mechanics. The way you talk about it, I get the feeling you have barely played any action games at all. "Ramifications that extend past the point of lifebars" is nothing new in third-person shooters, as I've already pointed out, and most of the other things you praise (you're not a bullet sponge, you can't just blindly rush enemies etc.) can be found in pretty much any action game as long as you kick the difficulty up enough. Try recklessly running around out in the open in Gears of War on Insane, or play the recent Splinter Cell games on the higher difficulty settings and see if they don't "enforce a cat and mouse game".

Saving my typing fingers here.

It's cool if people like the game but this kind of praise for the gameplay is kind of hilarious.

#35 Edited by shinjin977 (748 posts) -

TLoU is a great game but I disagree. It might be revolutionary in other ways but the gun-play is standard affair. The last FPS that was revolutionary was Gears 1 because that game made cover shooter a standard until even today. That is a revolution. I think GoW was a very average game but that game was revolutionary in the FPS landscape.

#36 Posted by Rejizzle (260 posts) -

I think that the gunplay is fantastic for a survival horror game, but the problem is that The Last of Us frequently forces the player into firefights. The infamous sniper section, going to zombie school with bill, navigating the sewers with the little black boy (Sam?) were all action set pieces that felt counterintuitive to the well made survival horror mechanics.

#37 Posted by Guesty_01 (339 posts) -

I love the basic gameplay of TLoU. Every encounter feels extremely tense as you do your best to take out as many opponents as possible quietly, before the shit hits the fan and it's all out survival, using any means necessary to down your foes whilst trying to conserve as many supplies as possible.

So visceral. So tense. So satisfying.

#38 Posted by MirkoS77 (13 posts) -

@icemael said:

@mirkos77: I didn't say it's been in third-person shooters since the 1980s. Try actually reading what I wrote.

Also, I don't know how you played these games (the way you talk about them, I doubt you've even played them at all), but having played all three on Hard or above, I can say that getting knocked over is far more frequent and lethal an issue in Resident Evil 6 and Vanquish than in The Last of Us, and that's ignoring all the other penalties you suffer in Vanquish.

lol dude. Maybe if you play them on Easy, or "play" them on Youtube.

The Last of Us is a great game, but there is not a single even remotely revolutionary thing about its mechanics. The way you talk about it, I get the feeling you have barely played any action games at all. "Ramifications that extend past the point of lifebars" is nothing new in third-person shooters, as I've already pointed out, and most of the other things you praise (you're not a bullet sponge, you can't just blindly rush enemies etc.) can be found in pretty much any action game as long as you kick the difficulty up enough. Try recklessly running around out in the open in Gears of War on Insane, or play the recent Splinter Cell games on the higher difficulty settings and see if they don't "enforce a cat and mouse game".

Why the hell bring up "any game from the eighties" when I am obviously talking about third person shooters? I wouldn't think this would even need to be explained, but apparently it does. I read exactly what you wrote, why don't you stay on topic? And again, what games are you talking about anyway from the eighties? ET from the 2600?

THIRD PERSON SHOOTERS. Topic at hand. Christ.

I've played GeoW and others on the hardest, and the only difference I see is that the screen gets redder much faster than on easier difficulties. I just popped in 2 and it is vastly different from TLoU. I can continue to fill enemies with lead as I'm being shot. Yes, cover is more enforced but control is unaffected when hit except from heavy weapons/explosives. You just have much less leeway in how long you are able to stick your head up and absorb damage but aside there's no difference from normal.

If I'm playing GeoW on insane and I run around in the open, I'll be dead very quickly, sure. But that's not because I have no control over my character when hit, it's because the generic red gear of death has been lessened significantly. Perhaps you should play it again at the hardest and then play TLoU. If you can't see the difference, than I don't know what to tell you...

#39 Posted by slyspider (1153 posts) -

The guns had a amazing feel till you realize that they do no damage and everyone takes 40 shots to die. Played on normal, and if its any different on super hard I may give the game another chance but I refuse to suffer though playing the game for the story alone. I play military sims though so when people dont go down in 1-2 shots it feels weird

#40 Posted by kishinfoulux (2255 posts) -

@mirkos77 said:

@kishinfoulux said:

Gunplay...revolutionary...

I...don't have anything nice to say so I'll just refrain, but will leave with a hearty "LOL".

Getting shot removes player agency. No other TPS has done this before. If that's not a revolutionary step, why? People can argue they don't like the feeling of the shooting, reticule sway, etc, but no one has named me one other TPS that does what I noted in my post. It fundamentally changes the way the game is played, and until I hear of another game that's done this, I can't see it as anything but revolutionary.

I don't really know what you're talking about. All I know is, like other Naughty Dog games, the shooting isn't good at all and the general combat isn't either.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.