TLOU wasn't really a TPS though because you didn't have unlimited ammo. Shooting was a last resort for the gameplay, at least as far as the little I played.
I'm not at all following the argument about quality of gameplay that's linking it to 'room to master/speedrun'. Why can gameplay not be slow and methodical and based on thinking skills and decision making rather than hand-eye coordination and reactions? Does Chess have sucky gameplay because you can't speed-run it? My fave ARPG, CON, allowed barrels to be pushed. I could box off corridors and cheese monsters as a result. I could take time moving exploding barrels into a room and trying an explosive ambush. These were slow, 'boring' activities that I found very rewarding because I was using lateral thinking to solve the problem of defeating monsters instead of the simpler mash-buttons-and-quoff-potions of the basic gameplay loop and other ARPGs like Diablo 3.
I think variety and choices constitute a large part of good gameplay. It's probably a subjective thing.
If we are talking about 'combat and gameplay design' here. I'm not talking about game design - mixed in with emotional story, narrative, pacing, characters etc. If I'm strictly looking at what players can do during the game play moments here.
If so, I am defining game play as decision making whether it’s a board game or a video game. As you get better at a game your accuracy at making the correct decisions should go up therefore the speed of trivial decisions should be made faster. Mastery of the mechanics of any game should reveal the different and faster ways to solving the problem because as you understand mechanics your brain should interpret the mechanics as different ways to solve a problem, the method of least resistance.
There is nothing wrong with cheesing monsters and boxing off corridors, just like there is nothing wrong with finishing God of War using just the basic light, light, heavy combo. It's certainly a SLOWER, less exciting and more grindy repetitive way of finishing the game, but if that is what the player likes than so be it. Most of us are looking for something a little deeper than the basic combo. All I'm saying is that if people want to tell me that combat is this amazing thing in TLOU 1, then people should be replaying the gameplay repeatedly because there is nothing else like it. I disagree with the assessment that the TLOU is ground breaking gameplay, and IMO, it is largely, for most players, an incredible rollercoaster experience that is largely driven by the environment, characters, story and narrative, I don't think people are actually engrossed by it's gameplay loop to want to play it repeatedly. I get that a few people love it enough to go back and play it again, but I don't think that's the majority of players.
Back to my TLDR; I think the fact that they are improving and modernizing combat for the REMAKE is a great idea, because I don't think it aged well and is by far the _weakest_ element of the TLOU. It's certainly not the driving force as to why I play the game (and others echo this as well). And for players like me coming to the game for the first time in 2022, I do feel that ND made the right decision here to give their combat a one over.
As noted, you play CON because you enjoy the gameplay. If the main driver for you to play a game is for it's gameplay then I agree it's a game with good gameplay at the heart of it, the debate for me is not the speed, speed is just a result of getting better at making choices. Creativity in combat is a result of getting better at understanding choices. Fighting style is just a result of getting better at understanding choices. Video games do have a hand eye coordination component that doesn't exist in board games, but this mastery of this opens up additional options not available to those who haven't mastered it, and for some games entirely, is the main gameplay loop - see racing games.
That's how I see good gameplay. I look at titles like Hades, like Ori, like Slay the Spire, like RTS genres, like shooters, etc. but I just don't feel this way about TLOU. In TLOU, I don't come out of a battle thinking, man that was great, let's do play that again; I definitely don't come out of a clicker stealth moment thinking I want to run through that again after dying several times. I mean, can Halo, Gears etc be a slog? Sure, it definitely can be if you decide to never leave cover, never realizing that health is a resource that replenishes after a few seconds of not getting hit. Can racing games be a slog? Sure, for people that don't want to understand racing lines, and the precision required to break and turn and control a car. Golf is the definition of just mastery over hitting your ball. I just don't feel this way about TLOU. I have no interest in mastering TLOU combat, it's not engaging to me in that way. And when I look at people who have mastered TLOU combat, ie speed runners, I actually see them avoiding combat largely though there are some brief moments of brilliance, but I would say, I see a lot more combat brilliance in TLOU 2 than I do in 1.
TLDR: the remake offering modern combat will make the remake a better game than the original. It's the number 1 reason why someone should consider buying this, the graphics are, even in the remaster more than sufficient at telling it's strongest point, which is the story.
