Last of Us [PS4]

[patsu]

I still do not understand who is jumping and what they are jumping on.

Neither do I since I have not read the Gamespot review nor the Gaf threads.

Oh, now I understand what you mean. You're looking at the wrong forum.

Touché

 

[Brad Grenz]

Phil Fish tweeted earlier today that any reviewer who lowered their score of Last of Us because it wasn't "fun" was doing the medium a disservice, and that is a sentiment I wholly agree with. And it's obviously that tweet was aimed squarely at Phil Kollar's review on Polygon. It's a shame that in 2013 there are still professional critics getting caught up in 1992 era GamePro concepts like "fun factor".

Movies don't have to be fun to be good. Books don't have to be fun to be good. Music does not have to be fun to be good. It's absurd to suggest a game has failed to any degree simply because it didn't aim to be "fun". There is a whole world of human emotion and experiences out there to explore, and games offer unique opportunities for such investigations, so it is tragic when anyone reinforces the idea that games shouldn't try to be anything more than toys that provide "fun".

 

[temesgen]

ND is a great developer, they have wonderful production values all around. The graphics, story, character development, music, game play - literally everything is done at a really high level.

This is the reason why 1st parties are so important, same thing goes for Turn 10 for example lots of pride in their work.

 

[Xbat]

Its not that polygon gave it a low score but that everyone I know did predict that they would give it a low score, thats the problem.

 

[Sigfried1977]

There is no problem, and 7.5 is not even a low score. Heck, if someone gives it a 2 out of 10 and then manages to back up his opinion that's also perfectly okay. It's been perfectly okay in any other forms of entertainment for ages too, and I don't see why games should be treated differently. Differing opinions aren't wrong. They are extremely valuable.

Take Tom Chick's Uncharted 3 review for example:

http://www.honestgamers.com/9640/playstation-3/uncharted-3-drakes-deception/review.html

I like Uncharted 3 a lot mind you, but I cannot for the life of me disagree with any of the points Chick elaborates on in his review. They just didn't annoy me quite as much as they annoyed him is all.

As for myself, I thought GTAIV was an awful game for example, and I'm probably not the only one either. If I had to review the thing now I wouldn't give it more than a 4/10.
I'm also pretty sure every gamer has plenty of similar examples of his own, and that's why I'm really glad the critical hive mind governing the industry is slowly starting to fade out of existence.

 

[Arwin]

I don't like GTAIV either, and as for the Last of US, the whole post-apocalyptic premise, and the infected people in particular are completely outside of my realm of interests, as is anything that resembles 'horror' in general.

I can fully separate how well a game is made from its subject matter though, and can easily recognise a great game or a classic even if it's not pressing all my buttons, and often also why. But having said that, objectivity is not a requirement for reviews.

 

[Xbat]

There is no problem, and 7.5 is not even a low score. Heck, if someone gives it a 2 out of 10 and then manages to back up his opinion that's also perfectly okay. It's been perfectly okay in any other forms of entertainment for ages too, and I don't see why games should be treated differently. Differing opinions aren't wrong. They are extremely valuable.

Take Tom Chick's Uncharted 3 review for example:

http://www.honestgamers.com/9640/playstation-3/uncharted-3-drakes-deception/review.html

I like Uncharted 3 a lot mind you, but I cannot for the life of me disagree with any of the points Chick elaborates on in his review. They just didn't annoy me quite as much as they annoyed him is all.

As for myself, I thought GTAIV was an awful game for example, and I'm probably not the only one either. If I had to review the thing now I wouldn't give it more than a 4/10.
I'm also pretty sure every gamer has plenty of similar examples of his own, and that's why I'm really glad the critical hive mind governing the industry is slowly starting to fade out of existence.

You have misundertood what I'm trying to say, it doesn't matter that it got a 7.5 but that I could predict beforehand that they would give it a lower than the average score.

 

[Nesh]

As for myself, I thought GTAIV was an awful game for example, and I'm probably not the only one either. If I had to review the thing now I wouldn't give it more than a 4/10.
I'm also pretty sure every gamer has plenty of similar examples of his own, and that's why I'm really glad the critical hive mind governing the industry is slowly starting to fade out of existence.

Thats why you wouldnt be the right person to review GTA4

If someone doesnt like a certain game, he is entitled only to his personal opinion and preferences. Which is irrelevant if that game is high quality, highly memorable and enjoyable for most people or for the niche it is targeting. And thats why reviews arent about reading some person's personal opinion. We dont read reviews to know Bob's personal preferences and views. We dont want to know Bob. Screw Bob. We want to know the game

So we read a review to understand if a game is worth purchasing/playing for us

A reviewer has to forget about his individual preferences to avoid personalizing his review. He has to write the review as an objective observer who understands what people want

I am not a fan of GTA4 either. But if I were a reviewer I would have tried to recognize the work behind it to give as much of an objective description of the game as possible. I might have given it an 8 or 9 even for me it could be a 6 or 7/10

 

[Sigfried1977]

A reviewer has to forget about his individual preferences to avoid personalizing his review. He has to write the review as an objective observer who understands what people want

Nonsense. You're looking for objectivity where there can't be any. I also don't give a damn about how much work someone poured into a game. I'm pretty sure a lot of people worked really damn hard on Transformers Revenge of the Fallen. Unfortunately it's the end result that counts, and it was utter garbage. (and I like big summer movies very much. I also liked GTA at some point)

And why should liking a game be a requirement for reviewing it? Kinda defeats the whole purpose. I get not reviewing games of certain genres (but even that's debatable). I mean, a Madden review by me would be of no use to anyone. I do like open-world games though, and I certainly like action games, so why shouldn't I review a GTA game? I'm sure plenty of people who didn't like GTAIV very much do like GTA in general, so why shouldn't their opinion be represented?

 

[Daozang]

A reviewer has to forget about his individual preferences to avoid personalizing his review. He has to write the review as an objective observer who understands what people want

I disagree as well.
Just like movies, you just have to find, the reviewer that has somewhat similar tastes with you.
It's all subjective...
Even graphics are subjective these days, with people confusing tech with art...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Thats why you wouldnt be the right person to review GTA4

That's a rather close-minded view of reviews. What if he was a person who typically didn't like GTA games, but found GTAIV very good? That's a review worth sharing with other similarly minded people to tell them, "hey, you might be surprised and actually like this game!" Similarly, fans of the genre/series might not like the turn it's taken and review it lowly, but a new audience opens up who wouldn't if the only reviews came from fans.

The correct approach is multiple reviews from a broad sample all giving their personal opinion, and readers taking in the different perspectives by reading the articles and seeing if the points raised, positive and negative, are relevant to them and as such, whether they'd like the game or not.

An apt simile is watching a movie. Everyone who comes out of a movie theatre has an opinion on what they just watched, and they're all entitled to share that opinion. If you were to collate those opinions as a metric, you'd have a metascore like Metacritic, showing a range of opinions and a mean average. Game journalism is no different. The people who have played LoU all have a subjective opinion of whether they think it's worth buying/playing or not, which they've shared. Only allowing people who are going to like your game to review it will do the whole market a disservice.

The opinions of those you disagree with can just be ignored; they don't need to be silenced.

 

[goonergaz]

You have misundertood what I'm trying to say, it doesn't matter that it got a 7.5 but that I could predict beforehand that they would give it a lower than the average score.

What surprised me was the score from Edge!

I'm just glad UD didn't let me down (like they were ever going to) - really looking forward to this, PS3 going out with a bang and can't wait to see what ND have for PS4!

 

[Nesh]

Nonsense. You're looking for objectivity where there can't be any. I also don't give a damn about how much work someone poured into a game. I'm pretty sure a lot of people worked really damn hard on Transformers Revenge of the Fallen. Unfortunately it's the end result that counts, and it was utter garbage. (and I like big summer movies very much. I also liked GTA at some point)

And why should liking a game be a requirement for reviewing it? Kinda defeats the whole purpose. I get not reviewing games of certain genres (but even that's debatable). I mean, a Madden review by me would be of no use to anyone. I do like open-world games though, and I certainly like action games, so why shouldn't I review a GTA game? I'm sure plenty of people who didn't like GTAIV very much do like GTA in general, so why shouldn't their opinion be represented?

Did I say liking a game is a requirement for reviewing? Carefully notice the area where I said I would have rated the game higher than what my personal preference suggests. Yes I cant be 100% objective but I can be more objective than others as long as I am aware of the readers and put aside my personal tastes. In contrast you would have forced even an extreme 4/10 into a review.
You know very well why a review exists which is to understand if a game is worth playing. Using the argument "there cant be any objectivity" doesnt mean we are willing to read and accept just any review as informative when the person is not even into the thing he is reviewing. But it can go both ways. Someone may be overrating a game too because he is either biased or because he cant go deep enough into what makes that game bad or not.

And please dont be worked up because some people hate some low socring reviews. Just as you have an opinion about a game, people can have opinions about reviews as well

I disagree as well.
Just like movies, you just have to find, the reviewer that has somewhat similar tastes with you.
It's all subjective...
Even graphics are subjective these days, with people confusing tech with art...

Depends what you mean by tastes. Would you read a review about Madden or Fifa written by someone who is condemning the game because he hates sports?
Of course no. Which takes us back to my point

That's a rather close-minded view of reviews. What if he was a person who typically didn't like GTA games, but found GTAIV very good? That's a review worth sharing with other similarly minded people to tell them, "hey, you might be surprised and actually like this game!" Similarly, fans of the genre/series might not like the turn it's taken and review it lowly, but a new audience opens up who wouldn't if the only reviews came from fans.

You brought a specific scenario with which I may agree.

The correct approach is multiple reviews from a broad sample all giving their personal opinion, and readers taking in the different perspectives by reading the articles and seeing if the points raised, positive and negative, are relevant to them and as such, whether they'd like the game or not.

Thats a different subject. This argument is more related to the reader's approach towards learning about a product. This is unrelated to the quality of an individual reviewer and his article which was what I was talking about.
Not all reviews are good (not referring to scores)

An apt simile is watching a movie. Everyone who comes out of a movie theatre has an opinion on what they just watched, and they're all entitled to share that opinion. If you were to collate those opinions as a metric, you'd have a metascore like Metacritic, showing a range of opinions and a mean average. Game journalism is no different. The people who have played LoU all have a subjective opinion of whether they think it's worth buying/playing or not, which they've shared. Only allowing people who are going to like your game to review it will do the whole market a disservice.

The opinions of those you disagree with can just be ignored; they don't need to be silenced.

As I said it is not about liking or not. This is why I would have rated GTA higher than what my personal tastes suggest. Positive reviews can be equally bad at giving an idea of how good product/movie is.
Yes opinions vary. But, still just the fact that both everyday opinions and game journalism have this it doesnt make any of them less problematic. Personal opnions expressed in everyday lives can be easier excused though.
The value and importance of an opinion though is contextual. It depends on the approach and purpose.

For example lets say I hate sports. I can express how Fifa 2013 sucks because deep inside I hate football. I hate the rules, I hate its aim and I hate its concept. Thats ok if I am with a bunch of other people who hate sports.

Now try to convince people who are passionate about football why football sucks and imagine how this opinion looks like under that context.

This opinion would be very irrelevant and misleading if I am a reviewer whose personal taste affects my review about Fifa 2013 in a magazine. The football fan have no idea that I hate football and hence dislike football games. And because I am subtle about it I can make the game look bad.

Such approaches express a problem in game journalism nevertheless. Of course this is why we check multiple reviews but again thats a different subject

Now lets provide a different approach while I retain my personal opinion.

I may not like football but regardless put my personal taste aside and give attention to what makes football so fascinating to others. I recognize what others like even though its not my cup of tea.

If I am a reviewer I may also try to put my personal taste aside because I want to do my job right and I am AWARE of what kind of people my readers are. Hence taking THAT into consideration I look into what people are looking for into that type of game, and how well these are implemented.

If I cant stand playing football games, know that this will affect the review and am aware that people who like football games are my readers I would not write a review because I cant give a good assessment of how good the game is.

 

[Sigfried1977]

You said my opinion on the game would be irrelevant unless I liked the game, so yes, that right there pretty much states liking the game would be a requirement for a relevant review in your opinion. I simply don't agree with you on that matter at all.

 

[Daozang]

Depends what you mean by tastes. Would you read a review about Madden or Fifa written by someone who is condemning the game because he hates sports?
Of course no. Which takes us back to my point.

Yeah, I get your point.
And i agree to some extend. It's like asking someone that hates science fiction to review an episode of Star Trek.
Some objectivity is required.

But honestly, because each reviewer will bring his own taste-prejudice-etc into his review, my point stands!

So, no, I wouldn't read the reviewer of your example. I'd go with someone with tastes similar to my own!!!

 

[RenegadeRocks]

To those who have watched or read the reviews:

Another reviewer has said on a forum that the game has Competitive Co-op? What does that mean? Is it like UC3?

BTW< played the demo on HARD and , guess what, I think thats the best way to play. The games wasn't much harder for me to notice, but there were lesser supplies strewn around the fight area. On normal, there's just too much lying around and makes it all very "Gamey", where as on Hard, it felt a bit better as te supplies were still there but not so many, hence keeping the immersion alive.

Lovely Demo !

 

[Billy Idol]

You said my opinion on the game would be irrelevant unless I liked the game, so yes, that right there pretty much states liking the game would be a requirement for a relevant review in your opinion. I simply don't agree with you on that matter at all.

Maybe not liking the game, but liking/knowing the genre?

E.g. someone hates games...now he does a game review...you are interested?

E.g. someone hates fighting games...now he does a Street Fighter review...you gonna read it?

E.g. ...


I have to review scientific manuscripts before they can get published as part of my job. If I feel that I am no expert on the topic presented in the paper...I reject to review it because of this reason...it simple does not make any sense.

I do not see such a behaviour for game review.

 

[upnorthsox]

Back to The Last of Us, I noticed many of you have pre-ordered the DD version. Is this because of a preference for DD or are there other reasons?

My reason for asking is, do any believe that owning the DD version may put you in a better position for a possible PS4 version? Otherwise I prefer physical disc, especially this late in the console cycle.

 

[Daozang]

Back to The Last of Us, I noticed many of you have pre-ordered the DD version. Is this because of a preference for DD or are there other reasons?

My reason for asking is, do any believe that owning the DD version may put you in a better position for a possible PS4 version? Otherwise I prefer physical disc, especially this late in the console cycle.

The only reason I got the DD version is that it's ten euros cheaper than the physical.

 

[messyman]

I ordered the DD version because I live in a middle of nowhere and it's faster to download than driving to my closest gameshop.