The Last of Us

jebus84

Backfire wrote: »

I'm enjoying it so far

I played and finished the first 2 and I know its more of the same but eh its fine for me.

I've played worse.

loved the first two,it went backwards for part 3,reminds me of the new resident evil game very predictable

Timmyctc

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Actually a few parts of this game really annoyed me where I wanted to sneak past enemies and stealth them but the game actively did not let me.

It was weird I was sneaking up behind enemies to get a back attack and they would always hear me and then rip me apart. It got really frustrating since I didn't know what I was doing wrong. Took me a lot of frustrating deaths to realise that the developers had designated this place as somewhere where stealth doesn't work. Very, very poor and inconsistent game design there. Fortunately I only encountered it in one or two areas.

Are you sure you just didn't get spotted by someone? Stealth seemed to work in all areas except one "kill the enemies to advance" area for moi. And that awful zombie area in the sewers with the ambusher zombies

Retr0gamer

Timmyctc wrote: »

Are you sure you just didn't get spotted by someone? Stealth seemed to work in all areas except one "kill the enemies to advance" area for moi. And that awful zombie area in the sewers with the ambusher zombies

Definitely not and I tried it loads as well in those areas. The enemies would always be alerted to you once you got a certain distance to them even if you were right behind them. It was so frustrating because I was doing it perfectly every time.

krudler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Actually a few parts of this game really annoyed me where I wanted to sneak past enemies and stealth them but the game actively did not let me.

It was weird I was sneaking up behind enemies to get a back attack and they would always hear me and then rip me apart. It got really frustrating since I didn't know what I was doing wrong. Took me a lot of frustrating deaths to realise that the developers had designated this place as somewhere where stealth doesn't work. Very, very poor and inconsistent game design there. Fortunately I only encountered it in one or two areas.

Yeah the section where

Ellie is covering Joel with the sniper rifle

drove me nuts, you should have been able to move past the enemies rather than take them all out, and then the last encounter with the infected you can get past every one of them without firing a shot, the

flooded tunnel

part.

C14N

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Actually a few parts of this game really annoyed me where I wanted to sneak past enemies and stealth them but the game actively did not let me.

It was weird I was sneaking up behind enemies to get a back attack and they would always hear me and then rip me apart. It got really frustrating since I didn't know what I was doing wrong. Took me a lot of frustrating deaths to realise that the developers had designated this place as somewhere where stealth doesn't work. Very, very poor and inconsistent game design there. Fortunately I only encountered it in one or two areas.

That really annoyed me too as I really like it when a game actually lets you not kill anyone. I also only noticed it in one or two places. The spot after you

crash the truck

was one where I must have tried it 5 or 6 times by just sneaking out but I think there's a cutscene that happens when you kill them all. The other one where I just tried to not kill the enemies was when you're with

Henry and they had a searchlight

that you have to get past. However, I still think this only happened in a minority of situations so I'm still going to say that most of the time you don't even have to clear the area out.

Timmyctc

krudler wrote: »

Yeah the section where

Ellie is covering Joel with the sniper rifle

drove me nuts, you should have been able to move past the enemies rather than take them all out, and then the last encounter with the infected you can get past every one of them without firing a shot, the

flooded tunnel

part.

You can get past the infected in the tunnel undetected though.

krudler

Timmyctc wrote: »

You can get past the infected in the tunnel undetected though.

Yeah that's what I mean, huge amount of infected in one of the climactic scenes and you can easily get past them, whereas there's 4-5 guys you have to fight earlier, it's a pity the option wasnt always there to sneak past throughout the game, it is mostly but its annoying having to clear guys out when you've sod all weapons and it'd make more narrative sense for Joel to try get Ellie past as quietly as possible.

Retr0gamer

There was one part when you get seperated from Ellie and the other two in the sewers where sneeaking up on the infected just did not work, they were normal infected as well not clickers.

It only happens in a very small number of cases, 2 or 3 maybe but it was annoying all the same since it's inconsistent with the rest of the game where stealth is a viable tactic and when it's not the player is given cues that the enemy is alerted to their presence.

TBH it felt more like a bug than anything.

Timmyctc

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There was one part when you get seperated from Ellie and the other two in the sewers where sneeaking up on the infected just did not work, they were normal infected as well not clickers.

It only happens in a very small number of cases, 2 or 3 maybe but it was annoying all the same since it's inconsistent with the rest of the game where stealth is a viable tactic and when it's not the player is given cues that the enemy is alerted to their presence.

TBH it felt more like a bug than anything.

thats one of the places im on about. They are the ambushers, they just sprint around in circles, you can sneak up on two but after something like 5 attempts i gave up on the rest and just shot them all

krudler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There was one part when you get seperated from Ellie and the other two in the sewers where sneeaking up on the infected just did not work, they were normal infected as well not clickers.

It only happens in a very small number of cases, 2 or 3 maybe but it was annoying all the same since it's inconsistent with the rest of the game where stealth is a viable tactic and when it's not the player is given cues that the enemy is alerted to their presence.

TBH it felt more like a bug than anything.

Was that where you

get separated from Ellie and have the other kid with you, there's a rake of wandering infected in an underground part

. that did my head in too I just wound up making noise, attracting them to a choke point and lobbing molotovs at them

Retr0gamer

Yeah it was.

krudler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Yeah it was.

That ruined my up to that point alright death count, also the section not much farther where Ellie is trying to open the door with the other kid and you have to hold off a pile of them on a stairwell, it saved at a point where my equipment wasnt made so I had to scramble around assembling bombs and molotovs and reloading before I could get into the fight, started reloading constantly after that.

Tubbs4

Are they not runners in that part which are different enemies?
very little chance of sneaking past them.

Retr0gamer

Well if they were different enemies where stealth and stealth attacks don't work then Naughty Dog did a very poor job of communicating that to the player. They look the same as the regular infected and and act no different from what I could tell and there was no mention of there being different this new type and how it behaves.

Timmyctc

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well if they were different enemies where stealth and stealth attacks don't work then Naughty Dog did a very poor job of communicating that to the player. They look the same as the regular infected and and act no different from what I could tell and there was no mention of there being different this new type and how it behaves.

Its in the breakdown you receive at the start of the game i think. 4 types of enemies with the bloater page ripped out.

pablomakaveli

I didn't even realize there was an ambusher type of infected while playing it. I remember the bit retro is referring to though. I tried 4-5 times sneaking up on one from behind and when i got so close she'd turn around and grab me.

Just shot her with the bow and arrow after that. But there was nothing to distinguish the ambushers from the runners at all.

Timmyctc

Also to add. Naughty Dog handled it perfectly imo. The four types if I recall correctly were (in no particular order, Runners, Infected, Clickers and Bloaters) You either collect a handout or you start with it detailing all the enemies and their traits bar the bloaters. The characters have experienced 20 years with the infected so they cant rightly just drop in a conversation about the 4 variations of enemies or anything like that. Similar to the way not much is given about the backstory of the characters. It would be akin to Bill and Joel having a conversation along the lines of
"You owe me for that time 4 years ago when I saved your life during a supply drop gone wrong" etc.

Retr0gamer

Timmyctc wrote: »

Also to add. Naughty Dog handled it perfectly imo. The four types if I recall correctly were (in no particular order, Runners, Infected, Clickers and Bloaters) You either collect a handout or you start with it detailing all the enemies and their traits bar the bloaters. The characters have experienced 20 years with the infected so they cant rightly just drop in a conversation about the 4 variations of enemies or anything like that. Similar to the way not much is given about the backstory of the characters. It would be akin to Bill and Joel having a conversation along the lines of
"You owe me for that time 4 years ago when I saved your life during a supply drop gone wrong" etc.

Sorry but if they did communicate that well people wouldn't have had trouble with it. Also either there was no runners up to that point or else the stealth was working well on them because other than the handful of incidents it did happen in I didn't notice a difference between the types.

They did well distinguishing clickers from the other types of infected with visuals and audio cues from the enemies and characters, they failed with the runners.

The Last of Us wiki says both stalkers and runners can be shived and strangled whereas the ones in the areas we are talking about were immune to this by the fact that it's impossible to sneak up on them without the AI being alerted. It was only ever in these 2 or 3 areas this happens. This seems to indicate it's a bug or bad game design where naughty dog arbitrarily changed the rules of the game.

Timmyctc

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Sorry but if they did communicate that well people wouldn't have had trouble with it. Also either there was no runners up to that point or else the stealth was working well on them because other than the handful of incidents it did happen in I didn't notice a difference between the types.

They did well distinguishing clickers from the other types of infected with visuals and audio cues from the enemies and characters, they failed with the runners.

The Last of Us wiki says both stalkers and runners can be shived and strangled whereas the ones in the areas we are talking about were immune to this by the fact that it's impossible to sneak up on them without the AI being alerted. It was only ever in these 2 or 3 areas this happens. This seems to indicate it's a bug or bad game design where naughty dog arbitrarily changed the rules of the game.

Well you two guys are the first I've encountered to have trouble with it . I managed to shiv two of them but always got spotted, too many lines of sight imo.

C14N

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well if they were different enemies where stealth and stealth attacks don't work then Naughty Dog did a very poor job of communicating that to the player. They look the same as the regular infected and and act no different from what I could tell and there was no mention of there being different this new type and how it behaves.

I found this to be true as well. I remember going through a lot of the game wondering when the stalkers were going to show up because they were mentioned on the information poster near the start. They weren't different enough from the runners imo.

The problem with that area for me was that the nearest infected kept looking around so you never got time to sneak up though.

johnny_ultimate

Dialing back a few posts to the whole 'too much combat' complaint, I wouldn't say this is a problem unique to The Last of Us - in fact, it has effected any number of otherwise excellent games to the point where I'd almost consider it one of the most unwelcome general gaming trends. Bioshock Infinite and Spec Ops: The Line both struggle to bring the same imagination and coherence to their gameplay as they do their world building and storytelling, falling back on another combat arena with slightly depressing frequency. You see it in stuff like the Mass Effect games too, a clear dividing line between the narrative and the combat corridors that inevitably separate one narrative event from the next. The funny thing is that in all these games is that very often the quieter moments are the ones we remember - giraffes, God Only Knows etc... Lightly remixed arena battles will just grow repetitive.

I think it's a reason why the pared down games like Gone Home, Dear Esther and Journey are so satisfying thematically and narratively - in focusing solely on the storytelling, even to the point of giving the player little to do other than traverse the landscape, they allow the more important points to truly shine. In many of these blockbuster games, the combat can be a regrettable distraction. Don't get me wrong - I really enjoyed some of the Last of Us action sequences, as I thought several of them were very tense and made the player feel like Joel was in actual mortal danger (not Elly, though, who could do a ****ing singing & dancing Marcarena in front of a zombie and be OK, and I still think the bit where

Joel was injured

could have been developed significantly deeper in terms of actual gameplay). But there were other bits where I wish they just cut some of the crap, particularly that ridiculous sniper rifle genocide sequence. Funny enough, the exploration of the abandoned suburb before that was one of the most wonderful of the game, full of detail and clever subtle storytelling. it's a shame it is book-ended with a silly body count.

Developers like Naughty Dog need to trust that the player will not get bored without being forced to kill something every so often. This game could easily have lost some of the more 'filler' like combat and still been immensely satisfying over a tighter but still very healthy running time.

With that said, what the three aforementioned games - Spec Ops, Bioshock and The Last of Us - all do really well is developing characters that have strongly developed, convincing reasons for being as violent as they are, and making that fact a fundamental foundation of the world and story (occasionally to the point of making the player feel like absolute ****). It's actually amazing how rarely this has been done before. Uncharted's actively contradictory story and gameplay have became more pronounced as the series has progressed, but here Joel is absolutely remorseless and aware that he must commit deplorable acts to survive. At least that goes someway to justifying the fact he will strangle a bandit without a second thought. Still, we need more rules broken, gameplay with greater variety that doesn't fall back on tried and tested methods. It is just another example of why mainstream games like this need to be far more experimental in the gameplay department, or be more liberal when it comes to quieter moments.

pablomakaveli

I actually enjoyed most of the combat in this game. It had a real visceral feel to it and because you have limited ammo and weapons its makes it a more scrappy struggle to survive. I had a few tense moments where i had to make the most of what little i had.

That said i did think some combat sequences were unnecessary (the OTT sniper rifle sequence the main culprit here) but given the world in the Last Of Us the world is a hostile place where everyone has to struggle and fight just to survive the combat did feel appropriate to the game.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Dialing back a few posts to the whole 'too much combat' complaint, I wouldn't say this is a problem unique to The Last of Us - in fact, it has effected any number of otherwise excellent games to the point where I'd almost consider it one of the most unwelcome general gaming trends. Bioshock Infinite and Spec Ops: The Line both struggle to bring the same imagination and coherence to their gameplay as they do their world building and storytelling, falling back on another combat arena with slightly depressing frequency. You see it in stuff like the Mass Effect games too, a clear dividing line between the narrative and the combat corridors that inevitably separate one narrative event from the next. The funny thing is that in all these games is that very often the quieter moments are the ones we remember - giraffes, God Only Knows etc... Lightly remixed arena battles will just grow repetitive.

Agree, I got tired of the combat in Bioshock Infinite really quickly, the section where you first meet Elizabeth going through the different rooms with info about "the specimen" was fantastic, you were being given a ton of info about what she was without the game directly telling you through a cutscene or piles of dialogue.
Then after the dozenth or so "uh oh those doors won't open until all these guys are dead and I'll mostly use that tonic thing I just picked up" section just couldn't be bothered with it. Overall I enjoyed the combat in The Last Of Us but it's the setting and atmosphere that makes it so compelling, there was definitely a few sections where it felt like a chore taking out yet another group of armed guys, but stuff like the collapsed skyscraper, the college campus, Ellie in the woods with the deer etc, all made up for it.
Same as Uncharted, the opening of 2 with Drake clambering up the train or moving the gigantic statue around later on, or even standing atop that hotel and gawking at the spectacular view were far more enjoyable than fighting a pile of generic soldiers yet again, developers should have more faith in the narrative they're giving us and not jam in as many combat sections as possible to appeal to the COD generation crowd who want to see stuff blow up every few minutes.

Timmyctc

krudler wrote: »

Agree, I got tired of the combat in Bioshock Infinite really quickly, the section where you first meet Elizabeth going through the different rooms with info about "the specimen" was fantastic, you were being given a ton of info about what she was without the game directly telling you through a cutscene or piles of dialogue.
Then after the dozenth or so "uh oh those doors won't open until all these guys are dead and I'll mostly use that tonic thing I just picked up" section just couldn't be bothered with it. Overall I enjoyed the combat in The Last Of Us but it's the setting and atmosphere that makes it so compelling, there was definitely a few sections where it felt like a chore taking out yet another group of armed guys, but stuff like the collapsed skyscraper, the college campus, Ellie in the woods with the deer etc, all made up for it.
Same as Uncharted, the opening of 2 with Drake clambering up the train or moving the gigantic statue around later on, or even standing atop that hotel and gawking at the spectacular view were far more enjoyable than fighting a pile of generic soldiers yet again, developers should have more faith in the narrative they're giving us and not jam in as many combat sections as possible to appeal to the COD generation crowd who want to see stuff blow up every few minutes.

Arah here now. Ye had a perfectly good post up until that point. Why CoD is shoehorned into any conversation about the negative aspects of gaming is I won't know. Do you really thing NG were like "Call of Duty is popular, lets put more action sequences in our games" I massively doubt it. Call of Duty hasn't even influenced games in its own genre that much, look as far as BF3 and they did their own thing, stuck with it and made a massively more enjoyable game. Devs know whats popular alright but they also know that letting yourself get influenced by games that arent even that well received is a surefire way for having your game bomb.

EDIT: Furthermore Uncharted 1 is even guilty of that "too many fight sequences" and sure that came out the same year as CoD 4.

tok9

Anyone playing online?

Finally got my ps3 back online and getting into it. Really liking it so far. 3 weeks in and 50 survivors

Hogzy

Bit late to the party but i have just finished playing the best game I have ever played. Never thought Naughty Dog would top Uncharted 2 but The Last of Us was an absolute masterpiece of a game.

Mickeroo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Dialing back a few posts to the whole 'too much combat' complaint, I wouldn't say this is a problem unique to The Last of Us - in fact, it has effected any number of otherwise excellent games to the point where I'd almost consider it one of the most unwelcome general gaming trends. Bioshock Infinite and Spec Ops: The Line both struggle to bring the same imagination and coherence to their gameplay as they do their world building and storytelling, falling back on another combat arena with slightly depressing frequency. You see it in stuff like the Mass Effect games too, a clear dividing line between the narrative and the combat corridors that inevitably separate one narrative event from the next. The funny thing is that in all these games is that very often the quieter moments are the ones we remember - giraffes, God Only Knows etc... Lightly remixed arena battles will just grow repetitive.

I think it's a reason why the pared down games like Gone Home, Dear Esther and Journey are so satisfying thematically and narratively - in focusing solely on the storytelling, even to the point of giving the player little to do other than traverse the landscape, they allow the more important points to truly shine. In many of these blockbuster games, the combat can be a regrettable distraction. Don't get me wrong - I really enjoyed some of the Last of Us action sequences, as I thought several of them were very tense and made the player feel like Joel was in actual mortal danger (not Elly, though, who could do a ****ing singing & dancing Marcarena in front of a zombie and be OK, and I still think the bit where

Joel was injured

could have been developed significantly deeper in terms of actual gameplay). But there were other bits where I wish they just cut some of the crap, particularly that ridiculous sniper rifle genocide sequence. Funny enough, the exploration of the abandoned suburb before that was one of the most wonderful of the game, full of detail and clever subtle storytelling. it's a shame it is book-ended with a silly body count.

Developers like Naughty Dog need to trust that the player will not get bored without being forced to kill something every so often. This game could easily have lost some of the more 'filler' like combat and still been immensely satisfying over a tighter but still very healthy running time.

With that said, what the three aforementioned games - Spec Ops, Bioshock and The Last of Us - all do really well is developing characters that have strongly developed, convincing reasons for being as violent as they are, and making that fact a fundamental foundation of the world and story (occasionally to the point of making the player feel like absolute ****). It's actually amazing how rarely this has been done before. Uncharted's actively contradictory story and gameplay have became more pronounced as the series has progressed, but here Joel is absolutely remorseless and aware that he must commit deplorable acts to survive. At least that goes someway to justifying the fact he will strangle a bandit without a second thought. Still, we need more rules broken, gameplay with greater variety that doesn't fall back on tried and tested methods. It is just another example of why mainstream games like this need to be far more experimental in the gameplay department, or be more liberal when it comes to quieter moments.

Agreed. I really loved the Mass Effect games and though some of the combat parts of the game were great quite a few times I just wanted them to be over so I could get back to the Citadel and have a chat. The Last of Us was similar for me in a way that a lot of the time I just wanted to get through a section because I wanted to see what happens next rather than actively enjoying the combat.

I definitely more enjoyed parts like the walk through the suburbs you mentioned and

the giraffes

was probably one my single favourite moments in a game ever.

There was a few times where the even managed to make the character development an active part of the game, like if you didn't explore a certain room you would have missed out on a conversation between Joel and Ellie. More of that would have been welcome.

C14N

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Dialing back a few posts to the whole 'too much combat' complaint, I wouldn't say this is a problem unique to The Last of Us - in fact, it has effected any number of otherwise excellent games to the point where I'd almost consider it one of the most unwelcome general gaming trends. Bioshock Infinite and Spec Ops: The Line both struggle to bring the same imagination and coherence to their gameplay as they do their world building and storytelling, falling back on another combat arena with slightly depressing frequency. You see it in stuff like the Mass Effect games too, a clear dividing line between the narrative and the combat corridors that inevitably separate one narrative event from the next. The funny thing is that in all these games is that very often the quieter moments are the ones we remember - giraffes, God Only Knows etc... Lightly remixed arena battles will just grow repetitive.

I think it's a reason why the pared down games like Gone Home, Dear Esther and Journey are so satisfying thematically and narratively - in focusing solely on the storytelling, even to the point of giving the player little to do other than traverse the landscape, they allow the more important points to truly shine. In many of these blockbuster games, the combat can be a regrettable distraction. Don't get me wrong - I really enjoyed some of the Last of Us action sequences, as I thought several of them were very tense and made the player feel like Joel was in actual mortal danger (not Elly, though, who could do a ****ing singing & dancing Marcarena in front of a zombie and be OK, and I still think the bit where

Joel was injured

could have been developed significantly deeper in terms of actual gameplay). But there were other bits where I wish they just cut some of the crap, particularly that ridiculous sniper rifle genocide sequence. Funny enough, the exploration of the abandoned suburb before that was one of the most wonderful of the game, full of detail and clever subtle storytelling. it's a shame it is book-ended with a silly body count.

Developers like Naughty Dog need to trust that the player will not get bored without being forced to kill something every so often. This game could easily have lost some of the more 'filler' like combat and still been immensely satisfying over a tighter but still very healthy running time.

With that said, what the three aforementioned games - Spec Ops, Bioshock and The Last of Us - all do really well is developing characters that have strongly developed, convincing reasons for being as violent as they are, and making that fact a fundamental foundation of the world and story (occasionally to the point of making the player feel like absolute ****). It's actually amazing how rarely this has been done before. Uncharted's actively contradictory story and gameplay have became more pronounced as the series has progressed, but here Joel is absolutely remorseless and aware that he must commit deplorable acts to survive. At least that goes someway to justifying the fact he will strangle a bandit without a second thought. Still, we need more rules broken, gameplay with greater variety that doesn't fall back on tried and tested methods. It is just another example of why mainstream games like this need to be far more experimental in the gameplay department, or be more liberal when it comes to quieter moments.

I definitely agree with most of what you said although I do think, in defense of The Last of Us, that it did significantly cut down on combat compared to most AAA games. With the exception of the few unfortunate sections where you did have to kill guys to get through the area (although narratively I think that makes sense in the final area) and the zombie attacks, you can normally give the killing a miss. Even then it usually has to be very carefully executed because of how light resources are and how easy it is to be killed. I have to say that this aspect grated far more in Bioshock Infinite (although it's still a very good games) because by about 60% in I was starting to just wish I could get the combat section over with to move on and visit the next area.

Timmyctc wrote: »

Why CoD is shoehorned into any conversation about the negative aspects of gaming is I won't know. Do you really thing NG were like "Call of Duty is popular, lets put more action sequences in our games" I massively doubt it. Call of Duty hasn't even influenced games in its own genre that much, look as far as BF3 and they did their own thing, stuck with it and made a massively more enjoyable game.

Well the simple fact is that when a game is as massively successful as Call of Duty, it's going to be a very influential game series. No, of course Naughty Dog didn't just go into a meeting and say "let's try to copy COD because that will probably make our game popular too" but that doesn't mean that the series hasn't greatly impacted many other games this generation, for better or worse, including The Last of Us.

Vincent Van Gogh was a very influential painter, it doesn't mean an artist influenced by him just sat down and said "I bet if I use the same techniques, my paintings will also be worth millions of Euro". The Beatles are a highly influential band, it doesn't mean other bands just got together and said "if we try to sound like the Beatles, we'll be really successful too". Influence isn't usually that straightforward.

However I have to disagree on the Battlefield thing. I admit I've only played the first 3 levels of BF3 so far but up to the point I'm at, it's almost indistinguishable from COD save for the improved visuals. All the stuff that COD4 made popular are there: aiming down sight, regenerating health, cool high-tech weapons, scripted set-pieces, heavy online multiplayer focus, gung-ho fighting "terrorists". I honestly struggle to find two games from different publishers that are so similar.

Timmyctc

C14N wrote: »

Well the simple fact is that when a game is as massively successful as Call of Duty, it's going to be a very influential game series. No, of course Naughty Dog didn't just go into a meeting and say "let's try to copy COD because that will probably make our game popular too" but that doesn't mean that the series hasn't greatly impacted many other games this generation, for better or worse, including The Last of Us.

Vincent Van Gogh was a very influential painter, it doesn't mean an artist influenced by him just sat down and said "I bet if I use the same techniques, my paintings will also be worth millions of Euro". The Beatles are a highly influential band, it doesn't mean other bands just got together and said "if we try to sound like the Beatles, we'll be really successful too". Influence isn't usually that straightforward.

However I have to disagree on the Battlefield thing. I admit I've only played the first 3 levels of BF3 so far but up to the point I'm at, it's almost indistinguishable from COD save for the improved visuals. All the stuff that COD4 made popular are there: aiming down sight, regenerating health, cool high-tech weapons, scripted set-pieces, heavy online multiplayer focus, gung-ho fighting "terrorists". I honestly struggle to find two games from different publishers that are so similar.

Well maybe you haven't played previous Battlefield titles (or FPS titles for that matter) Because the genre existed before COD4 and existed seperately from CoD and still does largely.

1ZRed

gimli2112 wrote: »

I had to take a break from Survivor. Me and Ellie are currently trapped in a bar by four baddies. I have 1/2 health, no bullets or medi packs and a bottle

Good luck with that! I stupidly started playing once when I was drunk and half talking to other people in the room at the time. Next day I didn't remember I'd played at all and I'd no health packs and feck all ammo or supplies. Then the penny dropped, it'd autosaved.

I was at the 2 story bookstore/old quarantine zone with hunters everywhere, so it was a difficult section of the game.