The Last Of Us Remastered Reviews: It Can't Be For Nothing

  • 97 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for random45
#51 Edited by Random45 (1807 posts) -

Edit: Alright guys, I fucking get it. Please for the love of God stop saying the same damn thing to me over and over.

Avatar image for gaspower
#52 Edited by GaspoweR (4899 posts) -

@adam1808 said:

@gaspower: Just going off the picture. Phil Kollar is a numpty too if he thinks the Last of Us is just good.

Numpty is a new word to me by the way. Hehe! :D

To be fair, I read his original review and though I haven't played the game, understood his rationale for giving it such a score though the updated 8.0 score just for the Remastered edition does come off as a bit strange despite the reasons given in the updated text.

Avatar image for azrailx
#53 Posted by azrailx (604 posts) -

i'm excited to get it.

good reason to get back into multiplayer, plus i never bought any of the dlc so im trying to rationalize the expense that way. =p

Avatar image for liquidprince
#54 Posted by LiquidPrince (17073 posts) -

@random45 said:

@liquidprince said:

@random45 said:

Jesus Christ, it's coming back to me now. All the perfect scores and shit this game got really annoyed the shit out of me back then. It's a VERY good game, but it's not perfect.

I don't see why that would annoy you, unless you have a personal thing against Last of Us or Naughty Dog. It was a fantastic game in pretty much every respect, which is why it got the scores that it did.

It's because if something is a 10/10, it means it's absolutely flawless, there's NOTHING wrong with it whatsoever, and they personally believe that the game could not be improved upon at all. THAT is what annoys me. In a perfect world, no game would ever receive a 10/10.

... What?

Avatar image for nodima
#55 Edited by Nodima (2602 posts) -

That is not what a 10/10 means. Before the music website CokeMachineGlow abandoned review scores altogether I thought they did an excellent job of summarizing what their scores meant, and as someone who's been a critic myself the past seven years I felt it neatly summarized how most reviewers approach their scores. You can roughly translate this to a four point scale.

DON'T EVEN BOTHER:

0 - 19%: Painful

20 - 29%: Terrible

30 - 39%: Poor

40 - 49%: Nearing average

BE WARNED:

50 - 54%: Average

55 - 59%: Slightly above average

60 - 64%: Good; serious flaws

TRY IT:

65 - 69%: Good; detracting problems

70 - 74%: Impressive; well above average

75 - 79%: Solid; few major reservations

BUY IT:

80 - 84%: Great; repeated listens suggested

85 - 89%: Exceptional; repeated listens demanded

90 - 95%: Best of decade

96 - 100%: Best of genre

Avatar image for demoskinos
#56 Posted by Demoskinos (17457 posts) -

@random45: No, it really doesn't. If you're attributing that to it then you're going to be sorely let down by a lot of games. 10/10 means it is a super high quality game. NOTHING is perfect. Everything could always be better or improve.

Avatar image for jazz_bcaz
#57 Edited by Jazz_Bcaz (272 posts) -

Is there always going to be this inevitable debate over game reviews and scoring systems? We should just let critics be critics and get rid of this whole notion of 'objective product reviews', considering there are so many Let's Plays nowadays that will show you the mechanics.

Obviously 10/10 implies something of highly comprehensive quality ('flawless' is just nonsense talk, let's not be silly) but we might as well be pragmatic and not refuse to use 10% of the already narrow scale, considering most publications have ditched anything below 4 already.

Avatar image for ssully
#58 Posted by SSully (5631 posts) -

@random45 said:

@liquidprince said:

@random45 said:

Jesus Christ, it's coming back to me now. All the perfect scores and shit this game got really annoyed the shit out of me back then. It's a VERY good game, but it's not perfect.

I don't see why that would annoy you, unless you have a personal thing against Last of Us or Naughty Dog. It was a fantastic game in pretty much every respect, which is why it got the scores that it did.

It's because if something is a 10/10, it means it's absolutely flawless, there's NOTHING wrong with it whatsoever, and they personally believe that the game could not be improved upon at all. THAT is what annoys me. In a perfect world, no game would ever receive a 10/10.

@demoskinos said:

@random45 said:

Jesus Christ, it's coming back to me now. All the perfect scores and shit this game got really annoyed the shit out of me back then. It's a VERY good game, but it's not perfect.

I don't think anyone is saying it is. 10/10 doesn't mean its perfect that doesn't exist its merely a indication that its receiving the highest recommendation from whatever outlet scored it.

This is why scores should just go away. 10/10 implies that it's flawless. I think every site should just use Quick Looks to "review" games. They just give an in-depth analysis of the game and what it entails, and then allows the viewer to determine whether they want to play it or not.

No, you are actually completely off base. You most likely get that mentality from schools/grading systems, which doesn't apply to critiques. Here on giantbomb they used to have a page the spelled out, "While we don't believe any game is perfect, we recommend this game without reservation", which is what pretty much all reviewers are saying when they give something a 10/10. As you said, nothing is perfect, but reviews are here to tell you if something is worth buying or not, and a 10/10 is saying "hey, this is really great and you should check it out".

Avatar image for gaminghooligan
#59 Edited by gaminghooligan (1831 posts) -

Works for me. Never got to play the entire game on ps3 just the last bits, so I'm their customer.

Avatar image for impartialgecko
#60 Edited by impartialgecko (1941 posts) -

@gaspower said:

@adam1808 said:

@gaspower: Just going off the picture. Phil Kollar is a numpty too if he thinks the Last of Us is just good.

Numpty is a new word to me by the way. Hehe! :D

To be fair, I read his original review and though I haven't played the game, understood his rationale for giving it such a score though the updated 8.0 score just for the Remastered edition does come off as a bit strange despite the reasons given in the updated text.

Probably has something to do with the DLC which is really excellent. That or he spent the last year listening to and reading effusive praise of the game and some of it rubbed off on him.

Avatar image for doublespy
#61 Posted by DoubleSpy (169 posts) -

For anyone interested, Sony is steaming a show in 8 minutes. "The Last of Us: One Night Live" in which the actors from the game will be performing the cut scenes live.

Avatar image for smcn
#62 Posted by smcn (958 posts) -

Re-reviewing this seems dumb and harkens back to the days when reviews had separate scores for "Graphics" and "Story" and "Sound". A game is defined by its melding of those parts, and I highly doubt a few more points of texture resolution would actually make Last of Us any better to someone who didn't like it.

Avatar image for smcn
#63 Posted by smcn (958 posts) -

@random45 said:

It's because if something is a 10/10, it means it's absolutely flawless, there's NOTHING wrong with it whatsoever, and they personally believe that the game could not be improved upon at all. THAT is what annoys me. In a perfect world, no game would ever receive a 10/10.

No outlet does, has ever, or should ever follow this philosophy. You're in the wrong here. Sorry.

Avatar image for hailinel
#64 Posted by Hailinel (25785 posts) -

Oh, really video game press outlets? You're saying that a better looking version of a game you gave near perfect scores to last year will get them this year too? Get outta here.

Yeah, these reviews are far from revelatory. Reading them, it's more a case of, "Well, duh." Naughty Dog would have had to have done horribly wrong to make the game substantially worse than the original release.

Avatar image for gaspower
#65 Posted by GaspoweR (4899 posts) -

@adam1808: Hmmm...I just remember that his main gripe with the game being the mechanics though I might be misremembering what other points negatively contributed to the scoring.

It is a bit strange since the Remastered version doesn't change any of the game mechanics and it is essentially the same. I mean keeping it consistently at 7.5 would probably have not been surprising. I dunno, it might have had something to do with the fact that the review was tacked on the original PS3 version which in a sense is fine but I think I would have been a bit less nit-picky if it was actually:
A. Had its own review, which I admit is probably unnecessary since IT IS the same exact game so there wouldn't be much to write about in the first place or...
B. Not have done an updated review for it at all. Hehe!

Avatar image for gaspower
#66 Posted by GaspoweR (4899 posts) -

@smcn said:

@random45 said:

It's because if something is a 10/10, it means it's absolutely flawless, there's NOTHING wrong with it whatsoever, and they personally believe that the game could not be improved upon at all. THAT is what annoys me. In a perfect world, no game would ever receive a 10/10.

No outlet does, has ever, or should ever follow this philosophy. You're in the wrong here. Sorry.

Yup, I have to agree. A 100% or 10/10 or 5/5, etc. doesn't mean that the game is perfect or flawless. Even the GB staff would even tell us that this is not ever the case when a game is given a 100% score.

Avatar image for impartialgecko
#67 Posted by impartialgecko (1941 posts) -

@gaspower: Polygon's review policies rarely make any sense. I often find that either their wording doesn't match up with the number at the bottom of the page or I don't completely understand why a particular reviewer disliked a game. I love a lot of the people working there but some of their decisions regarding how/why certain reviews are written are just plain odd.

Avatar image for flippyandnod
#68 Posted by flippyandnod (758 posts) -

Now that the alternate ending has been outed and performed live and the game redone, what are the chances ND took the time to animate it and hide it in the remastered game somehow?

Avatar image for gaminghooligan
#69 Posted by gaminghooligan (1831 posts) -

Okay I didn't think this deserved it's own forum thread but what is going on with the digital download for this. It downloads 11gb, then I played through the prologue only to get another screen where it was downloading more of the game... is this common with full games off psn? Maybe I'm crazy but I'd rather just let the thing do the whole download while I'm asleep rather than piece meal downloading each chapter.

Avatar image for hailinel
#70 Posted by Hailinel (25785 posts) -

Okay I didn't think this deserved it's own forum thread but what is going on with the digital download for this. It downloads 11gb, then I played through the prologue only to get another screen where it was downloading more of the game... is this common with full games off psn? Maybe I'm crazy but I'd rather just let the thing do the whole download while I'm asleep rather than piece meal downloading each chapter.

It's not uncommon, no. Some games allow you to start playing before the full download is complete. However, it's problematic, as you can get to a point where it's impossible to play any further because the console hasn't downloaded enough of the game yet. When that happens, the only option is to wait for more if not all of the game to download.

Avatar image for random45
#71 Posted by Random45 (1807 posts) -

@ssully said:

@random45 said:

@liquidprince said:

@random45 said:

Jesus Christ, it's coming back to me now. All the perfect scores and shit this game got really annoyed the shit out of me back then. It's a VERY good game, but it's not perfect.

I don't see why that would annoy you, unless you have a personal thing against Last of Us or Naughty Dog. It was a fantastic game in pretty much every respect, which is why it got the scores that it did.

It's because if something is a 10/10, it means it's absolutely flawless, there's NOTHING wrong with it whatsoever, and they personally believe that the game could not be improved upon at all. THAT is what annoys me. In a perfect world, no game would ever receive a 10/10.

@demoskinos said:

@random45 said:

Jesus Christ, it's coming back to me now. All the perfect scores and shit this game got really annoyed the shit out of me back then. It's a VERY good game, but it's not perfect.

I don't think anyone is saying it is. 10/10 doesn't mean its perfect that doesn't exist its merely a indication that its receiving the highest recommendation from whatever outlet scored it.

This is why scores should just go away. 10/10 implies that it's flawless. I think every site should just use Quick Looks to "review" games. They just give an in-depth analysis of the game and what it entails, and then allows the viewer to determine whether they want to play it or not.

No, you are actually completely off base. You most likely get that mentality from schools/grading systems, which doesn't apply to critiques. Here on giantbomb they used to have a page the spelled out, "While we don't believe any game is perfect, we recommend this game without reservation", which is what pretty much all reviewers are saying when they give something a 10/10. As you said, nothing is perfect, but reviews are here to tell you if something is worth buying or not, and a 10/10 is saying "hey, this is really great and you should check it out".

This really blows my fucking mind. I always thought scores were based on the quality of the game, and that's why everyone always blew a gasket when a game they wanted to do well only received an 8 out of 10. If this is really the case, then what in the world is even the point of a 10 point system? What differentiates a 9 from a 10, or 1 from a 2? A four star system like Giant bomb uses makes a lot more sense to me now though.

Avatar image for hailinel
#72 Edited by Hailinel (25785 posts) -

@random45 said:

@ssully said:

@random45 said:

@liquidprince said:

@random45 said:

Jesus Christ, it's coming back to me now. All the perfect scores and shit this game got really annoyed the shit out of me back then. It's a VERY good game, but it's not perfect.

I don't see why that would annoy you, unless you have a personal thing against Last of Us or Naughty Dog. It was a fantastic game in pretty much every respect, which is why it got the scores that it did.

It's because if something is a 10/10, it means it's absolutely flawless, there's NOTHING wrong with it whatsoever, and they personally believe that the game could not be improved upon at all. THAT is what annoys me. In a perfect world, no game would ever receive a 10/10.

@demoskinos said:

@random45 said:

Jesus Christ, it's coming back to me now. All the perfect scores and shit this game got really annoyed the shit out of me back then. It's a VERY good game, but it's not perfect.

I don't think anyone is saying it is. 10/10 doesn't mean its perfect that doesn't exist its merely a indication that its receiving the highest recommendation from whatever outlet scored it.

This is why scores should just go away. 10/10 implies that it's flawless. I think every site should just use Quick Looks to "review" games. They just give an in-depth analysis of the game and what it entails, and then allows the viewer to determine whether they want to play it or not.

No, you are actually completely off base. You most likely get that mentality from schools/grading systems, which doesn't apply to critiques. Here on giantbomb they used to have a page the spelled out, "While we don't believe any game is perfect, we recommend this game without reservation", which is what pretty much all reviewers are saying when they give something a 10/10. As you said, nothing is perfect, but reviews are here to tell you if something is worth buying or not, and a 10/10 is saying "hey, this is really great and you should check it out".

This really blows my fucking mind. I always thought scores were based on the quality of the game, and that's why everyone always blew a gasket when a game they wanted to do well only received an 8 out of 10. If this is really the case, then what in the world is even the point of a 10 point system? What differentiates a 9 from a 10, or 1 from a 2? A four star system like Giant bomb uses makes a lot more sense to me now though.

The entire concept of a ten-point review score system is an antiquated holdover from the early days of game reviews. It's been skewed too heavily over the years by poor review practices at various sites and reader (read: uninformed fan) interpretation that a ten-point scale doesn't even mean what it should at this point. There's no purpose in a scale from 1-10 if, in the reader's mind, the only scores that matter are 8-10, where 10 is equivalent to one of the best games ever and anything below 8 is untouchable garbage. And ten-point scales that use decimals are even worse, both for their innate absurdity (what's the difference between an 8.6 and an 8.7?), and again, the fan expectations. (See the volatile reaction to Jeff's Twilight Princess review when he gave it "only" an 8.8 instead of a 9.0.)

A five-star review system like Giant Bomb's is much more functional because, with its smaller scale, there's less room for score bloat or absurd personal interpretations. Metacritic tries to equate the five star system into its 100 point system, which is silly and demonstrates the issues with Metacritic in general. But too many sites still rely on the ten-point scale, with or without decimals, and so the absurdity of people blowing up over a game receiving a respectable 7.5-8.0 (when in reality, a truly poor score should be considered anything below a 5.0) continues to happen.

Avatar image for gaminghooligan
#73 Edited by gaminghooligan (1831 posts) -

@hailinel: thanks for the reply. I've been searching around, but do you happen to know if there's anyway to have it just download the full game?

Avatar image for quipido
#74 Posted by Quipido (1562 posts) -

@hailinel: thanks for the reply. I've been searching around, but do you happen to know if there's anyway to have it just download the full game?

Go to your home screen, find the game, press the OPTIONS button, scroll to information and in the "download status" you can see the actual total size and progress.

Avatar image for gaminghooligan
#75 Posted by gaminghooligan (1831 posts) -

@quipido: wow. I feel dumb. Thx duder, very helpful.

Avatar image for random45
#76 Posted by Random45 (1807 posts) -

@hailinel: Thanks for the explanation, it's going to take me a bit to adapt to seeing review scores as recommendation-based rather than quality-based, but at least I know now for future reference.

Avatar image for ripelivejam
#77 Posted by ripelivejam (13162 posts) -

now we just need Bioshock Infinite Remastered so they can go toe to toe for backlashed-against games of 2013!!!!

Avatar image for jimmyfenix
#78 Edited by jimmyfenix (3941 posts) -
Avatar image for shindig
#79 Posted by Shindig (4912 posts) -

That sentence could've been two if you just put the effort in. Both games were great, although Infinite feels almost separate from what Bioshock was. Although Bioshock was essentially System Shock.

Avatar image for haz
#80 Edited by Haz (420 posts) -

Having never played the game on the PS3 (I never owned a PS3) I'm excited to see what the hype is all about.

Avatar image for azrailx
#81 Posted by azrailx (604 posts) -

^ give multiplayer a chance too

its quite a bit of fun

Avatar image for cloudnineboya
#82 Edited by cloudnineboya (990 posts) -

I not long from preordering after watching the quick look and the live show/. magnificent game so it is.

Avatar image for giantlizardking
#83 Posted by GiantLizardKing (1144 posts) -

Something about this getting scores this high just doesn't sit that well with me for whatever reason. Maybe it's just because I've become so spoiled by PC games these past few years, but when you upgrade your PC all of your games are automatically "remastered" and you don't have to spend full price on a new game. Just load up steam and say "damn, look how fucking great all these games look". Something about this seems dirty to me.

Avatar image for shindig
#84 Posted by Shindig (4912 posts) -

Its odd reviewing this package for anybody, really. As a journalist you're obligated to do so as its a new product for a different format. But you can't reign back your scores because you've got the PS3 scores to contend with. And nobody's going to say a remastered version is less. That only leaves one direction for the scores to go, if they weren't there already.

However, if you're coming into the Last of Us - at this point in time - needing a score, you've probably never played it.

Avatar image for amyggen
#85 Posted by AMyggen (7738 posts) -

Was never a huge fan of how the game played the first time around to be honest. But the story was superb and the game just looks fantastic. One of the most detailed games I've ever played. I'll probably pick it up again when it goes on sale just to try the multiplayer, it looked kinda fun in the QL.

Avatar image for mariachimacabre
#86 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7097 posts) -

@jimmyfenix said:

@ripelivejam: Both games are overrated both games sucks

I really can't tell if you're being serious right now. This is what the internet lobotomy as done to me.

Avatar image for altairre
#87 Posted by altairre (1492 posts) -

now we just need Bioshock Infinite Remastered so they can go toe to toe for backlashed-against games of 2013!!!!

Infinite wins this contest handily. I'm actually surprised how little backlash LoU has gotten since that seems to happen to most high rated games these days.

Avatar image for bwheeeler
#88 Posted by bwheeeler (919 posts) -

@giantlizardking: Well, it's not a PC game, first of all. They included all the DLC along with brand-new commentary. They also spent the time getting the game to run on a completely new console, a massive task in and of itself. It's more than just a settings bump.

Avatar image for trafalgarlaw
#89 Posted by TrafalgarLaw (1715 posts) -
Avatar image for giantlizardking
#90 Posted by GiantLizardKing (1144 posts) -

@bwheeeler: yeah I get that it is slightly more than a settings bump, but between this and tomb raider it seems like a disturbing trend. It's fine that the DLC is included but if you already paid for the game and DLC once it would be nice if they would have only charged you an upgrade fee.

Avatar image for trafalgarlaw
#91 Posted by TrafalgarLaw (1715 posts) -

It's just strange how Polygoons intentionally underrates Playstation exclusives or flat-out misleads their readers, while scoring significantly worse performing multiplatform titles on the XB1, higher. That $750.000 sponsor money (read: bribe money) from Microsoft is still a sweet honey pot I guess. Do not call these goons journalist or reviewers, microsoft shills is more apt.

Avatar image for donmfjohnson
#92 Posted by DonMFJohnson (184 posts) -

So does everyone else but Joel have infinite ammo on every difficulty setting? And human enemies who shoot you don't usually drop ammo or weapons? Otherwise I'm really enjoying the game, but those things feel kinda out of place and brake my immersion.

Avatar image for hollitz
#93 Posted by hollitz (2375 posts) -

That was my initial thought until I clicked on the link. But if you think about it, Gies would never give a universally acclaimed Sony exclusive that high a score.

\

8.0 wasn't too far off from how I felt about the game originally. But the more I thought about it, the fonder I grew of it, which doesn't happen very often with games.

Avatar image for humanity
#94 Edited by Humanity (18720 posts) -

@trafalgarlaw: Calm down. I will agree that Arthur Gies shouldn't be allowed to write professionally for anything and should limit his "thoughts" to personal blogs if anything. But looking for vapor trails in the sky isn't a valuable use of anyone's time.

Avatar image for trafalgarlaw
#95 Posted by TrafalgarLaw (1715 posts) -

@humanity said:

@trafalgarlaw: Calm down. I will agree that Arthur Gies shouldn't be allowed to write professionally for anything and should limit his "thoughts" to personal blogs if anything. But looking for vapor trails in the sky isn't a valuable use of anyone's time.

What vapor trail? It's out in the open and even acknowledged by polygoons. You're okay with professional reviewers accepting money from videogame & console manufacturers, to fund a videogame website?

Avatar image for humanity
#96 Edited by Humanity (18720 posts) -

@humanity said:

@trafalgarlaw: Calm down. I will agree that Arthur Gies shouldn't be allowed to write professionally for anything and should limit his "thoughts" to personal blogs if anything. But looking for vapor trails in the sky isn't a valuable use of anyone's time.

What vapor trail? It's out in the open and even acknowledged by polygoons. You're okay with professional reviewers accepting money from videogame & console manufacturers, to fund a videogame website?

What do you think that giant Last of Us Remastered ad on the front page of this site is exactly?

Avatar image for trafalgarlaw
#97 Posted by TrafalgarLaw (1715 posts) -

@humanity said:

@trafalgarlaw said:

@humanity said:

@trafalgarlaw: Calm down. I will agree that Arthur Gies shouldn't be allowed to write professionally for anything and should limit his "thoughts" to personal blogs if anything. But looking for vapor trails in the sky isn't a valuable use of anyone's time.

What vapor trail? It's out in the open and even acknowledged by polygoons. You're okay with professional reviewers accepting money from videogame & console manufacturers, to fund a videogame website?

What do you think that giant Last of Us Remastered ad on the front page of this site is exactly?

Advertising, not sponsoring/funding.

Avatar image for humanity
#98 Posted by Humanity (18720 posts) -

@humanity said:

@trafalgarlaw said:

@humanity said:

@trafalgarlaw: Calm down. I will agree that Arthur Gies shouldn't be allowed to write professionally for anything and should limit his "thoughts" to personal blogs if anything. But looking for vapor trails in the sky isn't a valuable use of anyone's time.

What vapor trail? It's out in the open and even acknowledged by polygoons. You're okay with professional reviewers accepting money from videogame & console manufacturers, to fund a videogame website?

What do you think that giant Last of Us Remastered ad on the front page of this site is exactly?

Advertising, not sponsoring/funding.

Yes, it's a video game manufacturer/developer giving these fine, professional reviewers money to advertise their game on their site. If they didn't "fund" the site by advertising on it, GB would probably cease to exist.

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.