The Last of Us

WarZoneBrother

Gamesnash.ie: Pat wrote: »

and we'll throw in a bar of chocolate as a freebie :pac:

Ohh I do love my chocolate

johnny_ultimate

NotorietyH wrote: »

How do you know it doesn't? Maybe that's why they said it. I'm not the biggest fan of Empire, but I think they know about Citizen Kane.

It's an absurd and frankly idiotic statement that some game critics seem obsessed with for whatever reason (Metroid Prime was infamously called it, and here's an article that at least tries to justify the futile exercise by explaining why various games might be dubbed with such a statement). There's so many problems with it I wouldn't even know where to begin.

If the review had successfully explained how the various mechanics directly relate to Kane's achievements in areas such as structure, deep focus, unreliable narrators, lighting and other technical & storytelling innovations, well then sure I'd at least give the writer partial credit for trying. But no, I'm guessing it doesn't, and instead attempts to cite the film as a shorthand for something worthy and innovative. After all, I haven't seen any game reviewers use comparisons to the many pre-Welles auteurs who were arguably even more significant pioneers in developing the language of cinema. Such comparisons would be equally pointless, of course, but just goes to show how instead of making themselves look knowledgeable, a reviewer just makes themselves look a wee bit silly when they use the absurd Kane comparison (and didn't they hear, Vertigo is cinema's 'best' film now anyway ). We'd hope that if and when our supposed game-changing masterwork arrives - and if we have the ability to recognise it, which as pointed out above is no guarantee - it would be completely and utterly incomparable to any other medium. They don't call Kane 'film's Hamlet moment' after all.

I'm optimistic the Last of Us will be a grand old achievement and I can't wait to dig into it, but even some of the more excited reviews have been a little more considered in their gushing praise. The Eurogamer review, for one, is at pains to stress 'listen - it's still just blockbuster thrills, but they're excellent thrills.' All we can do is play it for ourselves, but sometimes a statement can be so devoid of merit we can happily call it on its own basis.

Oh, and I'd consider Empire as much of an authority on matters of cinema as I'd consider IGN an authority on gaming - i.e. not very much at all.

Timmyctc

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It's an absurd and frankly idiotic statement that some game critics seem obsessed with for whatever reason (Metroid Prime was infamously called it, and here's an article that at least tries to justify the futile exercise by explaining why various games might be dubbed with such a statement). There's so many problems with it I wouldn't even know where to begin.

If the review had successfully explained how the various mechanics directly relate to Kane's achievements in areas such as structure, deep focus, unreliable narrators, lighting and other technical & storytelling innovations, well then sure I'd at least give the writer partial credit for trying. But no, I'm guessing it doesn't, and instead attempts to cite the film as a shorthand for something worthy and innovative. After all, I haven't seen any game reviewers use comparisons to the many pre-Welles auteurs who were arguably even more significant pioneers in developing the language of cinema. Such comparisons would be equally pointless, of course, but just goes to show how instead of making themselves look knowledgeb, a reviewer just makes themselves look a wee bit silly when they use the absurd Kane comparison. We'd hope that if and when our supposed game-changing masterwork arrives - and if we have the ability to recognise it, which as pointed out above is no guarantee - it would be completely and utterly incomparable to any other medium. They don't call Kane 'film's Hamlet moment' after all.

I'm optimistic the Last of Us will be a grand old achievement and I can't wait to dig into it, but even some of the more excited reviews have been a little more considered in their gushing praise. The Eurogamer review, for one, is at pains to stress 'listen - it's still just blockbuster thrills, but they're excellent thrills.' All we can do is play it for ourselves, but sometimes a statement can be so devoid of merit we can happily call it on its own basis.

Oh, and I'd consider Empire as much of an authority on matters of cinema as I'd consider IGN an authority on gaming - i.e. not very much at all.

I'm rather drunk but I'm fairly sure the reference to "Citizen Kane" is that Kane is oft' noted as the best film ever and it stands as a shorthand for best game ever (or in this case the best game of the generation) as for the rest. I didnt quite read. Quite drunk.

Grumpypants

It has some faults and so far not doing anything that others games haven't done before but it does them really really well. About 4 hours in and enjoying it a lot. The work that has gone into this game is incredible.

Bad points lots of QTE, not great ai for the people with you quite often your cover is blown because they get spotted but kind of realistic too in that sense. Camera is a bit off like uncharted.

Good points: violence is realistic, first first time I battered someone it was a bit disturbing. Much more open than uncharted you can take a few routes but inevitably you do go the one general direct path but it feels like you are moving through buildings and neighbourhoods rather than down set corridors. Acting is impressive, locations are stunning.

Overall is be surprised if anyone didn't really like it.

NotorietyH

I just find it ridiculous that people can be so certain when they haven't even played the game.

The guy had like a 500 word review, so maybe instead of spending half the time detailing just how good the game was in terms of narrative and really pushing the medium and telling a story in a way only a video game could (which could all very well be true, I don't know I haven't played it) he decided to use a bit of cinematic shorthand to capture that, as he assumed the audience of a film magazine would be somewhat film literate. And actually he does talk about the gameplay and how it enhances the narrative. The Kane quote was this may well be gaming's Citizen Kane moment - a masterpiece that's looked back upon favourably for decades to come, or something quite close to that. He contextualised his meaning right there in the quote, and withing the context of the whole review it's not really that over the top.

I just find it odd that there's such an over the top vitriolic reaction to someone's apparent over the top enthusiasm for a game they haven't even played yet.

Retr0gamer

NotorietyH wrote: »

I just find it ridiculous that people can be so certain when they haven't even played the game.

The guy had like a 500 word review, so maybe instead of spending half the time detailing just how good the game was in terms of narrative and really pushing the medium and telling a story in a way only a video game could (which could all very well be true, I don't know I haven't played it) he decided to use a bit of cinematic shorthand to capture that, as he assumed the audience of a film magazine would be somewhat film literate. And actually he does talk about the gameplay and how it enhances the narrative. The Kane quote was this may well be gaming's Citizen Kane moment - a masterpiece that's looked back upon favourably for decades to come, or something quite close to that. He contextualised his meaning right there in the quote, and withing the context of the whole review it's not really that over the top.

I just find it odd that there's such an over the top vitriolic reaction to someone's apparent over the top enthusiasm for a game they haven't even played yet.

There's no vitriol here. The reviewer is just a total hack.

And then there's this:

The Kane quote was this may well be gaming's Citizen Kane moment - a masterpiece that's looked back upon favourably for decades to come, or something quite close to that.

There's no way you can say this with out those decades passing so that you can look back and see how it's held up. Otherwise you're talking nonsense like this reviewer. As Johnny Ultimate pointed out Citizen Kane got snubbed on release by a few people including the academy and it's only in retrospect years later that you can truly call it a masterpiece.

The worst time to decide that something is a masterpiece is during the hype on release. If it was we'd all still think Goldeneye was the greatest FPS ever made (and unfortunately some people still think so).

So no vitriol there. He's just a **** reviewer.

NotorietyH

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's no vitriol here. The reviewer is just a total hack.

And then there's this:



There's no way you can say this with out those decades passing so that you can look back and see how it's held up. Otherwise you're talking nonsense like this reviewer. As Johnny Ultimate pointed out Citizen Kane got snubbed on release by a few people including the academy and it's only in retrospect years later that you can truly call it a masterpiece.

I'm well aware of the history of Citizen Kane. It was also nominated for 9 Oscars, so exactly shunned as people like to say. Everyone seems to be missing the part where he said it may be gaming's Citizen Kane moment. He is acknowledging that it will be decades before ou could say for certain.

I've only read a handful of reviews and I could easily see someone being able to make the argument that it could be at some stage in the future. The brief bits I've read about the AI, the gameplay enhancing the narrative, even on a thematic level, the performances, the score. That everything comes together to tell an emotionally resonate story with complex characters and themes in a way that only video games can.

It would be incredibly easy to make an argument that it's a watershed moment for games just from grabbing quotes from the countless reviews. I wouldn't make that argument, as I haven't played the game, I'd make a case for Journey of being a real showcase of what only games can do, but I wouldn't dismiss anyone's opinion that The Last of Us could be a watershed moment for games, especially before playing it. I've read a lot worse game reviews than that Empire one. It is vitriol when he's been described as 'idiotic' and '****e'. It's such a bizarre over-reaction to an opinion that could very easily be proven right, or at the very least argued that it has merit. It wasn't that bad a review, he actually tried to make points about the gameplay and narrative rather than just list a plot synopsis.

Timmyctc

Timmyctc wrote: »

I'm rather drunk but I'm fairly sure the reference to "Citizen Kane" is that Kane is oft' noted as the best film ever and it stands as a shorthand for best game ever (or in this case the best game of the generation) as for the rest. I didnt quite read. Quite drunk.

It's Empire, you can buy yourself a 5 star review if you send them out a free mug.

They have about as much credibility when it comes to reviews as my hamster has. Last time I glanced through an issue of the magazine there wasn't a single review that offered anything other than a brief synopsis and a few general comments on the obvious aspects of the production such as script, acting, direction, etc followed by a score that was often at odds with the text.

The Last of Us is very good but to call it the defining game of this generation, or any for the matter is nothing more than hyperbole. I would be willing to put money on the fact that there was a substantial cheque on it's way to Empire for ad space dedicated to The Last of Us.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The worst time to decide that something is a masterpiece is during the hype on release. If it was we'd all still think Goldeneye was the greatest FPS ever made (and unfortunately some people still think so).

I will punch the next person who tells me that Goldeneye is the greatest FPS ever made. Yes it was somewhat revolutionary for its time but it's been surpassed in every way a thousand times since then. Trying to play it now it akin to torture yet it didn't stop some twat in the pub from going off on a 10 minute long rant about how it's still as relevant today as it was back then.

GTR63

Bet they call GTA V a genre defining EPIC (boy has that word been worn by overuse) and the Pulp Fiction of gaming or some crap when its reviewed. I really hope the Cit Kane thing ain't on the box when I buy it.

Retr0gamer

I don't think people get the significance of Citizen Kane to the cinematic format. If you did you'd know why something in an interactive medium that tries to ape cinema no matter how good will never compare to it. A watershed moment in the videogame medium won't be 'ah sure it's got a decent story, like you see at the cinema'.

NotorietyH

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I don't think people get the significance of Citizen Kane to the cinematic format. If you did you'd know why something in an interactive medium that tries to ape cinema no matter how good will never compare to it. A watershed moment in the videogame medium won't be 'ah sure it's got a decent story, like you see at the cinema'.

I studied film in University for five years, I think I get the significance of Citizen Kane.

Several of the reviews comment on how The Last of Us doesn't try to just ape the cinematic format unlike Unchartered. They mention how the gameplay ties into the narrative. That's something film can't do. One of the most commom element in all the reviews is how emotionally drained a lot of the reviewers are on finishing the game. That's a huge achievement for a video game. Not just because of the story, but because the choices you make and the gameplay make the characters and story resonate that bit more.

A lot of Kane's impact was technical, in terms on how it was shot etc. whereas gaming is an inherently more technical medium so gaming's Citizen Kane moment would more likely to be a narrative focused, and having the gameplay support and enhance the narrative rather than the kind of disconnect you get with Uncharted where likeable Drake has killed thousands of people outside of the cut scenes.

Whether or not The last of Us resonates emotionally with you or not doesn't invalidate the experiences a large portion of the reviewers. It's immaterial. I don't think The Last of Us is the Citizen Kane moment but I could easily see an argument being made.

It would be one thing if the review was an outlier, but all he said was something pretty much every other review said less directly. That's what I have trouble with. The certainty with which people who haven't played the game, say that it couldn't possible be a watershed moment where a large portion of the people who have played it basically say it could be, not that it is, but it could be. We won't know for 2 to 3 years at least to see if The Last of Us had any influence on games.

Gaming as a medium has always had trouble reconciling narrative with gameplay, because of the need to entertain as well, causes a disconnect. Naughty Dog may well have cracked it. The conditions are perfect. They've been giving complete autonomy in creating exactly the game they want based on the goodwill and success of the Uncharted games, and the game is coming at the end of the console cycle when they will have a complete understanding of how to program for the PS3. A pretty much unlimited budget and they are clearing one of the most talented studios out there. Welles was given complete control and final cut of Kane by the studio, it wasn't an indie film, and created a masterpiece that combined and invented some cinematic techniques but there were still other cinematic influences in it. It took some elements that existed already but advanced them and combining everything together; its technical achievements, narrative and composition, created something special. I really don't see how it's beyond the realms of possibility that Naughty Dog managed to achieve something similar with a video game. You could argue some of things Welles did we're taken from other mediums. Unreliable narrators and broken structures were in novels before that and plays. Does that lessen Kane's impact?

Games are obviously going to draw on cinematic influences, just as every medium draws on every other medium. Cinema is just the closest comparable medium to games. It would like dismissing Tarantino's legacy in film because his movies are so influenced by other films. I can't stand Tarantino myself but I wouldn't ever deny the cultural impact, influence and legacy his films have made. Especially if I hadn't even seen one of his films.

I'm done anyway, I think I've said as much as I can. I realize I'm arguing against cynicism on the Internet which is a fool's errand, and should have known better.

Big Knox

ShaneU wrote: »

95! how does that hat taste?

*Checks metacritic* : http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/the-last-of-us

noodler

I think it is absolutely pointless in the extreme to criticize a video game now because it might not hold up in 15-20 years time.

Different rules simply must apply.

If something was awesome for 50 hours when you first played it but not so 20 years later then I really do not think people should look back at it (Goldeneye example if you wish) and feel that they were somehow misguided or blinded to its flaws.

Videogames in the main (in the main) simply can't hold up as well as films over time and different standards need to apply.

Retr0gamer

Well my friend who is a professional film reviewer, who has played the game and studied film tells me it's got a few narrative problems in the same way uncharted had. It also relies a lot of QTE's and cutscenes which are hardly the best stroytelling mechanism for an interactive medium. There's plenty of reviews out there from far more respected journalists that saw the story is fantastic but it's still blockbuster material. I certainly wouldn't be putting any weight on a review from Empire of all places.

There seems to be a need for gaming to justify itself as an artistic medium and I'm kind of sick of hyperbolic statements from hack journalists like the above being bandied about trying to do just that. I'm not saying the game is going to be awful because it's not gaming's Citizen Kane equivalent it's just that from reading impressions with trusted journalists and talking to my friend about it it doesn't sound like it at all. But then what game is?

Retr0gamer

noodler wrote: »

Videogames in the main (in the main) simply can't hold up as well as films over time and different standards need to apply.

Rubbish. The films can date just as badly as games can. If it's a good game it will stay that way forever. The only way a game can really date is in the visuals but it's the least important part and if you have good art direction you can avoid it (and it's somewhere I doubt the Last of Us will have a problem). You can be blinded by technical achievements, novelty or even the hype which is what makes retrospective articles so interesting. If you want an example hype getting the best of most reviewers check out the GTA IV metacritic score and then read the retrospectives.

Having studied film in university and written many game reviews I do believe that comparrisions between The Last if Us and Citizen Kane are nothing more than lazy journalism of the worst kind. Kane as a film changed the landscape of cinema, though one could argue that a certain John Ford film did more to evolve cinema and that Welles borrowed most of whet made Kane great from it but that's a discussion tor another time. The Last of Us is a very good game but it has more in common with say the first JJ Abram's first Star Trek than it does Kane. The game is a blockbuster and never truss to hide that fact. Its glossy, full of set pieces and shamelessly used its stars to sell it. No bad thing but for a game to be the Citizen Kane of the medium then ut needs to change the way games are made and played forever and that simply is not the case here.

Zero-Cool

Well Final Fantasy VII is what, 16 years old? and that is still an absolute classic game to play, hasn't lost a bit of charm! Played it recently on PSN and still a joy to play. So games can hold up over time, very few I admit but it is possible. aaaahhhh FFVII.

Big Knox, you just scraped it man hahaha

cloud493

http://www.gamestop.ie/PlayStation%203/Games/44502/the-last-of-us-ellie-edition-gamestop-exclusive?previousUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamestop.ie%2FSearchResult%2FQuickSearch%2F%3Fq%3DThe%2BLast%2Bof%2BUs%26inTitle%3Dtrue

I know I want it...

NotorietyH

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't be putting any weight on a review from Empire of all places.

I'm not saying the Empire review, I've mentioned several times that there are plenty of other reviews from more respected sites that say pretty much the same thing just less directly.

Just as easily as you can pull a review for someone who agrees with your viewpoint I could pull several reviews that agree with the counter-argument.

Also to be definitively stating that The Last of Us won't impact or influence how games are made a week before its release is just as ludicrous as some people think referencing Citizen Kane in a review for the game is. It's just the polar opposite extreme reaction.

The Last of Us could be the first in a new wave of games, that just puts in place the tools for someone to take what they started and run with it, and create a whole new genre or way at looking at games. Like The Maltese Falcon putting in place some of the elements of Noir, while still being caught in some of the trappings of cinema at the time, but other film-makers picked up and ran with what it had set in motion, pulling influences from other genres and mediums. In just over six months we've had Journey, The Walking Dead and now maybe The Last of Us really showing how emotionally engaging and resonant video games can be and only in ways a video game can be. I think that's going to be the gaming watershed moment, not one game but a collection of games released close to each other that in 5 or ten years people, not everyone, but people will look back on as a turning point in the medium.

I only mention I studied film as a reaction to it being implied I didn't know what I was talking about. The fact that we can have this debate about a video game is an encouraging sign of the growth of games as a medium.

This has become a ridiculous circuitous debate though, as everyone can pull arguments from any number of sources to support their side or pull down the other. Until we've all played it, had time to consider it, there's no way of resolving the debate because we just don't know. Which has been my point all along.

Zero-Cool

The collectors statue is class

Wolverine359

^ two questions: Where can I buy it, and (dare I ask), how much does it cost?

Zero-Cool

Wolverine359 wrote: »

^ two questions: Where can I buy it, and (dare I ask), how much does it cost?

Gasmestop, only 100 squids just for the statue. Well worth it for a Citizen Kane type game!

http://www.gamestop.ie/Other%20Products/Games/44711

KillerShamrock

Wolverine359 wrote: »

^ two questions: Where can I buy it, and (dare I ask), how much does it cost?

Gamestop have it on their site its basically 100€ if the game came with it maybe

noodler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Rubbish. The films can date just as badly as games can. If it's a good game it will stay that way forever. The only way a game can really date is in the visuals but it's the least important part and if you have good art direction you can avoid it (and it's somewhere I doubt the Last of Us will have a problem).

You are a walking contradiction.

So you admit Goldeneye is a good game? Still? Despite the fact its graphic have aged?


By the way, I thought I had preempted your likely pedantry by saying "in the main" (saying it twice by the way) - obviously some films are just sh1t and will remain so. However in general, a 30 year old film remains infinitely more accessible and relevant than a 30 year old videogame and I would strongly argue this is the case in the vast majority of situations.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You can be blinded by technical achievements, novelty or even the hype which is what makes retrospective articles so interesting. If you want an example hype getting the best of most reviewers check out the GTA IV metacritic score and then read the retrospectives.

Now I have no idea where you are going with your argument - was this a general point or was it addressed to me?

KillerShamrock

Can this argument be settled elsewhere this thread is about The last of us. Not some comment made by a guy in a review. Take it elsewhere or the mods will be woken :-P

noodler

Richie6904 wrote: »

Can this argument be settled elsewhere this thread is about The last of us. Not some comment made by a guy in a review. Take it elsewhere or the mods will be woken :-P

Its actually against the charter to backseat mod!!

..
.

:pac:

Big Knox

NotorietyH wrote: »

Also to be definitively stating that The Last of Us won't impact or influence how games are made a week before its release is just as ludicrous as some people think referencing Citizen Kane in a review for the game is. It's just the polar opposite extreme reaction.

This. I'm not going to get into this further as it's a pointless debate until we have all played and can fully commit to views on the game but I find the counter opinions on the statement to be far worse considering the vast majority of people making them have never played the game.

I know referencing Kane usually amounts to be nothing more than pure hyperbole and is badly used for the most part but in this case it may be apt in the grand scheme of things, we just don't know yet. Personally I don't believe for one minute that it will have anywhere near the level of impact Kane did on the medium, however from reading all the available reviews it's understandable to see the game will no doubt have a lot of influence going forward and ultimately that's where the reference stems from.

On a lighter note; 96 BABY!!! :pac:

Retr0gamer

noodler wrote: »

So you admit Goldeneye is a good game? Still? Despite the fact its graphic have aged?

And I said this where?

noodler wrote: »

By the way, I thought I had preempted your likely pedantry by saying "in the main" (saying it twice by the way) - obviously some films are just sh1t and will remain so. However in general, a 30 year old film remains infinitely more accessible and relevant than a 30 year old videogame and I would strongly argue this is the case in the vast majority of situations.

Oh no you said 'in the main'! All my arguments are now null and void! Then you doubled down!

I totally disagree with you that 30 year old games are somehow less relevant or accessible than newer games. If you play an old game and it's not as good as you remember it's because it wasn't very good to begin with. There's a few outliers like Goldeneye that now look quaint because they were at the genesis of a genre (FPS games moving away from the Doom model in this case) and suffer from technical problems that affect gameplay but those cases are rare. If however you are playing something like Mortal Kombat and realise it's rubbish despite the good reviews it got, it's because it always was.

There's no 'in the main' games age worse than film. Maybe graphically they do in 2600 games or 32 bit polygons but then dismissing a game for it's graphics is like dismissing a film for not being in colour. If it's good it will stand the test of time.

CastorTroy

Richie6904 wrote: »

Can this argument be settled elsewhere this thread is about The last of us. Not some comment made by a guy in a review. Take it elsewhere or the mods will be woken :-P

But this is the Citizen Kane of arguments. :pac:


On topic, does anyone know if the announced single player DLC is story based or just challenges?