• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Last of Us Part I (Remake) | Review Thread

What score do you predict TLOUS Part I Remake will get?

  • 10-20%

    Votes: 5 8.3%
  • 30-40%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 50-60%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 70-80%

    Votes: 6 10.0%
  • 90-100%

    Votes: 31 51.7%
  • 80-90%

    Votes: 18 30.0%

  • Total voters
    60
  • Poll closed .

Ulysses 31

Member
I feel like the people who say Joel is not a good person played a different game... I wanna ask - the Joel haters - did you hate yourself and your actions as the protagonist in TLOU? So freaking bizarre.
There's plenty to bring up against Joel to judge if he's a moral person or not, his hunter days alone where he had to do things that still gives Tommy nightmares practically excludes him from being a "good" person. That's not to say he wasn't on path of redemption.

When people say Joel was being evil at the hospital is indeed puzzling when you lay out all the events that escalated the situation.
 
What’s the point of reviewing remakes anyway?

It's really simple -- there is a new game available, and it has elements (more than just graphical upgrades) which make it completely distinct from anything that came before. So an industry that is based on reviewing games is going to... review the experience that this game provides. Because... they've never had this experience before.

That's what's being reviewed. It literally doesn't matter that it's a remake. All remakes will get reviewed.

Really easy math on this one.
 
Last edited:
I really dont understand how this remake could be above a 40.....just insane
i'm sorry but...what?

Technically speaking this game is leading the industry in character models, facial mocap (whatever its called), accessibility features...it's the remake of one of the last decade's best and biggest success stories. It's a huge step up regarding a lot of what made TLOU2 an already excelent game (exclude level design, enemies calling each other's names, prone and dodge mechanics)

Why the hell would this be a 40/100? Because it's 70$? lmao.
 
i'm sorry but...what?

Technically speaking this game is leading the industry in character models, facial mocap (whatever its called), accessibility features...it's the remake of one of the last decade's best and biggest success stories. It's a huge step up regarding a lot of what made TLOU2 an already excelent game (exclude level design, enemies calling each other's names, prone and dodge mechanics)

Why the hell would this be a 40/100? Because it's 70$? lmao.
I'm tired and read his comment again, I'm pretty sure he meant above $40.
 
No Im talking about reviews haha. And im not trolling. I think that it shows the state of our industry right now. Its a game from ps3 with already a remaster for ps4 and now a cosmetic remake for ps5. But did it really get to the level we expect from a nextgen game?

All great archivements you mentioned are from the last of us 2. There is no structural jump from ps4 to ps5, they didnt even remake level design or gameplay mechanics. It doesnt matter that for many people it was one of the best games of a generation, because all its glory comes from the ps3 era.

A remaster or remake should get the same reviews from the original game just because of how great the original game was? That makes no sense
oh...since this is the review thread i thought it was the scores, lmao.
There's so much trolling at this point...who knows.

PianistaMacabro PianistaMacabro if you were talking about price then forget my post above, lmao.
 
metacritic user scores








 
A remaster or remake should get the same reviews from the original game just because of how great the original game was? That makes no sense

Do you know what a review is? What is the argument that this should have "bad" reviews? Jaws just re-released in theaters this past weekend, should that also have "bad" reviews because it's the same as a movie that's already come out a bunch of times?

So many people just lose their minds because they don't like that something is 70 dollars... it's fucking mind-blowing.
 
Last edited:

rofif

Member
Last edited:

kikii

Member
then he calls it re-remaster and posts the smalles thumbnail sized comparison photo.
what an idiot.

"This is like an old PC game that gets an HD texture pack by a modder, except that has already happened, officially, from Sony on PS4 "
oh yeah. hd modded textures. Gtfo out here. We should not give him any expousure
im enjoying myself it so far, even it was 3rd time i bought it ^^
 
Do you know what a review is? What is the argument that this should have "bad" reviews? Jaws just re-released in theaters this past weekend, should that also have "bad" reviews because it's the same as a movie that's already come out a bunch of times?

So many people just lose their minds because they don't like that something is 70 dollars... it's fucking mind-blowing.
Great way of starting a discussion. Unfortunalety looks like I know a little more than you what a review is.

First of all you mix cinema with games, making a naive mistake that a remake in a game is the same object as a rescreening from a movie.

For second looks like, by your comparison, that you leave outside of your understanding of a review of a remake all the technicality which is usually the biggest reason for a game to be remaked. So in the end what we are getting is the original game, which shouldnt be getting new reviews.....like jaws.

Unless you are more naive than it looks and cannot understand that an artistic object belongs to its time and any new observation over it is a revisitation, which doesnt have the same proprieties as a review and shouldnt have or has any necessity for
 
As far as the AI improvement, this video came out 8 years ago. The guy was practically run off NeoGAF from angry fans who couldn't handle it. Its a very well made video.

Haha, that thread was a classic. I woke up to pages of screenshots trying to say I lied about my footage. Actually, a lot of the people who were adamantly disagreeing with me ended up getting temporary bans for their behavior, which was pretty validating. I did a follow up on the second game’s AI and captured a ton of footage from the TLOU1 remaster on grounded difficulty for comparison, which included all of the same AI issues + a lot more, proving I wasn’t somehow manipulating the PS3 original.
 

Justin9mm

Member
The audio in this is a huge step up over part 2
I have a very good full surround home theatre setup and I find the overall volume to be noticeably low. -24 dB on my receiver volume is more than high enough on most content, to get the same volume from this game, it needs to be between -16 dB & -18 dB. Not sure why only for this game I have to crank it.
 
Great way of starting a discussion. Unfortunalety looks like I know a little more than you what a review is.

First of all you mix cinema with games, making a naive mistake that a remake in a game is the same object as a rescreening from a movie.

No, I didn't make that mistake at all because I in no way asserted that.

If you're going to engage with my analogy at all, you need to only focus on how reviews of remade games are different from reviews of re-released movies.

For second looks like, by your comparison, that you leave outside of your understanding of a review of a remake all the technicality which is usually the biggest reason for a game to be remaked. So in the end what we are getting is the original game, which shouldnt be getting new reviews.....like jaws.

Can you put bold sentence in English? Because this is borderline incomprehensible.

Jaws did get new reviews, and they too were good in the aggregate. Just like TLOU1 remake. Because no matter what the differences between them and the original releases, they are both new products for multiple medium-specific reasons when it comes to the current, modern landscape of products, aka "things people can/might spend their money/time on". That's the point of reviews, to assess and recontextualize the value and merits of any individual product/piece of art/whatever within the current choices given to consumers.

Your statement about "what a next gen game is" begs the question; no reviewer cares what you think is incumbent upon a dev to deliver as a "next-gen game", they only care about assessing this current offering in a way that maps to their philosophy on what is a good/bad game. That's why it has great scores, because it meets that threshold for the vast majority of pro critics. Which is the same reason why your question is idiotic in the first place, because you are trying to tie some other baggage to what a review is or should be, and most critics -- quite rightly -- are not.

Unless you are more naive than it looks and cannot understand that an artistic object belongs to its time and any new observation over it is a revisitation, which doesnt have the same proprieties as a review and shouldnt have or has any necessity for

Care to finish this sentence? Because again, it's just a mess.
 
Last edited:
No, I didn't make that mistake at all because I in no way asserted that.

If you're going to engage with my analogy at all, you need to only focus on how reviews of remade games are different from reviews of re-released movies.



Can you put bold sentence in English? Because this is borderline incomprehensible.

Jaws did get new reviews, and they too were good in the aggregate. Just like TLOU1 remake. Because no matter what the differences between them and the original releases, they are both new products for multiple medium-specific reasons when it comes to the current, modern landscape of products, aka "things people can/might spend their money/time on". That's the point of reviews, to assess and recontextualize the value and merits of any individual product/piece of art/whatever within the current choices given to consumers.

Your statement about "what a next gen game is" begs the question; no reviewer cares what you think is incumbent upon a dev to deliver as a "next-gen game", they only care about assessing this current offering in a way that maps to their philosophy on what is a good/bad game. That's why it has great scores, because it meets that threshold for the vast majority of pro critics. Which is the same reason why your question is idiotic in the first place, because you are trying to tie some other baggage to what a review is or should be, and most critics -- quite rightly -- are not.



Care to finish this sentence? Because again, it's just a mess.
So you use language as an argument. Not gonna waste my time with that kind of person. You probably have english as first language and thinks you are the cooldude.
Amazing, as always, how toxic foruns are
 
So you use language as an argument. Not gonna waste my time with that kind of person. You probably have english as first language and thinks you are the cooldude.
Amazing, as always, how toxic foruns are

Just don't say silly stuff and I'm sure everyone will be much more accommodating! Simple.
 
Joel's character basically Naughty Dogs his way through one heroic act to the next. From eagerly assuming the overprotective father role for Ellie, to risking everything to transport her, to saving her life once its discovered she'll have to be
sacrificed for a vaccine.

I can't say a misanthrope like me condones any of that, but according to western values that's the definition of a "good or nice" person, i.e. the hero. He's literally a "big ol' softy" with a "heart of gold" acting out "tough love". It wasn't exactly subtle either.
Well not exactly. He should be referred to as more of an anti hero. Which is what he is. He still takes on a hero's journey but instead of saving the world and making things better, he makes things worse for the entire human race. I'm not sure how they'll conclude this series though. I definitely think there will be a part 3 which will more than likely wrap the trilogy.

Ellie is still alive and Abby's Father was a doctor which means she may have some medical knowledge. Once Abby meets the firefly's they are going to tell her about Ellie being the cure which will then set Abby and Lev on a cross journey quest, possibly through all of California or hopefully back to the East coast, in search of Ellie. I definitely think they'll have Ellie give her own life for the cure in a bitter sweet wrap up of the series.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Well not exactly. He should be referred to as more of an anti hero. Which is what he is. He still takes on a hero's journey but instead of saving the world and making things better, he makes things worse for the entire human race.
Eh, you'll have to make a lot positive assumptions for the Fireflies for that to work without any hints in the game showing it's possible.

The Fireflies:
  • Have the means to make enough vaccines and store them
  • Have some sort of distribution network for the vaccines
  • Will hand out vaccines in a fair way
  • Can adequately defend their vaccines stock
  • Won't use the vaccines as leverage
With all these uncertainties it's a bit of a stretch IMO to say that Joel doomed the world in any way. As Part II shows, it's human on human violence that's the greater threat.
 
Eh, you'll have to make a lot positive assumptions for the Fireflies for that to work without any hints in the game showing it's possible.

The Fireflies:
  • Have the means to make enough vaccines and store them
  • Have some sort of distribution network for the vaccines
  • Will hand out vaccines in a fair way
  • Can adequately defend their vaccines stock
  • Won't use the vaccines as leverage
With all these uncertainties it's a bit of a stretch IMO to say that Joel doomed the world in any way. As Part II shows, it's human on human violence that's the greater threat.
That would be really interesting if they kill Ellie, create the vaccine but either keep it to themselves or use in some capacity to get what they want from another group.
 

DForce

Member
Eh, you'll have to make a lot positive assumptions for the Fireflies for that to work without any hints in the game showing it's possible.

The Fireflies:
  • Have the means to make enough vaccines and store them
  • Have some sort of distribution network for the vaccines
  • Will hand out vaccines in a fair way
  • Can adequately defend their vaccines stock
  • Won't use the vaccines as leverage
With all these uncertainties it's a bit of a stretch IMO to say that Joel doomed the world in any way. As Part II shows, it's human on human violence that's the greater threat.

It's a game, They can create any scenario they want.

I can't believe people think this is actually stopping them from writing a story where humanity is restored in the future.
 

Woggleman

Member
Joel is a much more nuanced person than good or bad. He has obviously done bad things which he pretty much admitted to but he also does good things and he is loyal to those he cares about. I truly believe he had the best intentions with Ellie.

That being said his actions also took destroyed what amounted to an entire community and took a girl's father from her. In her eyes he is the one who left her father on the floor bloodied with a hole in this throat. It is all about perspective.

With the exception of David and Rattlers everybody in this world is various shades of grey and people should stop trying to make it black and white.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
It's a game, They can create any scenario they want.
Not really if they want to keep players invested in the story, there should be enough continuity with the newer part of the story or else there's the risk of losing players investment in the story.

I doubt it would go over well if demons, extra terrestrial aliens and outer dimensional portals come into play.
I can't believe people think this is actually stopping them from writing a story where humanity is restored in the future.
All it did is doubting the Fireflies, you're making the strange leap from that to not wanting a hopeful future for humanity.
 

DForce

Member
Not really if they want to keep players invested in the story, there should be enough continuity with the newer part of the story or else there's the risk of losing players investment in the story.

I doubt it would go over well if demons, extra terrestrial aliens and outer dimensional portals come into play.

All it did is doubting the Fireflies, you're making the strange leap from that to not wanting a hopeful future for humanity.

You don't make a story about a girl that is immune without having a payoff.

Abby going to the Fireflies is further proof that they're going to continue the story of Ellie's community. Ellie even said during her confrontation with Abby that there's no cure because of her.

This shows where the writers directing the story.

This is why this story is fiction. They can create an organization somewhere in Washington with a large medical facility that's able to distrubute the vaccine to other organizations worldwide.
 

Woggleman

Member
The third one should either be a real downer or very hopeful. They should either kill Ellie to make a vaccine and we find out it doesn't work or there should be a doctor who can make it without killing her which will give us a happy ending.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
You don't make a story about a girl that is immune without having a payoff.
And yet that was the case for a while before Part II was announced, or at least that fatherly love can override reason/"the greater good"(something I doubt because of the way the Fireflies are present so far).
Abby going to the Fireflies is further proof that they're going to continue the story of Ellie's community. Ellie even said during her confrontation with Abby that there's no cure because of her.

This shows where the writers directing the story.
Not sure who you're talking to here since I said nothing about the Fireflies being done in the story, just that so far we don't know enough to judge if they have the capacity to cure the world with a vaccine.
This is why this story is fiction. They can create an organization somewhere in Washington with a large medical facility that's able to distrubute the vaccine to other organizations worldwide.
That would require some build up for it not to come off as some sort of Deus Ex Machina happy ending where the world is cured. Here's where writer talent comes in to sell that part of the story.
 

DForce

Member
And yet that was the case for a while before Part II was announced, or at least that fatherly love can override reason/"the greater good"(something I doubt because of the way the Fireflies are present so far).
Makes no sense. They wouldn't continue the story unless Ellie's immunity meant something.

Not sure who you're talking to here since I said nothing about the Fireflies being done in the story, just that so far we don't know enough to judge if they have the capacity to cure the world with a vaccine.
I'm telling you how they're still building up to the cure storyline. You're focused on how it's nearly impossible while they're writing a story that's leading to the vaccine.
That would require some build up for it not to come off as some sort of Deus Ex Machina happy ending where the world is cured. Here's where writer talent comes in to sell that part of the story.
There was no long buildup for the Fireflies being established. We just knew they existed.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Makes no sense. They wouldn't continue the story unless Ellie's immunity meant something.
Maybe it was meant to be a bittersweet ending at first till they saw how popular the game became.
I'm telling you how they're still building up to the cure storyline. You're focused on how it's nearly impossible while they're writing a story that's leading to the vaccine.
You're mistaken then, I'm saying we don't know enough so far. And if I have to make a snap judgement with what little's available then yeah it doesn't look good for the Fireflies. I'm not saying part 3 can't change that perception.
There was no long buildup for the Fireflies being established. We just knew they existed.
A terrorist group existing is not a big stretch, saying that group can also help cure millions with a vaccine is something that requires more than words to be believable IMO.
 

DForce

Member
Maybe it was meant to be a bittersweet ending at first till they saw how popular the game became.
So far it's not. They're continuing with the story. The tease at the end of TLOU 2 was obvious.
You're mistaken then, I'm saying we don't know enough so far. And if I have to make a snap judgement with what little's available then yeah it doesn't look good for the Fireflies. I'm not saying part 3 can't change that perception.
You can change anything in fictional writing.

The Fireflies didn't exist before the outbreak..

Jump 20 years into the future, then we have had a story about the military and the FIreflies with a quick introduction.
A terrorist group existing is not a big stretch, saying that group can also help cure millions with a vaccine is something that requires more than words to be believable IMO.
It doesn't require a lot of work.

They had hundreds of Fireflies when Abby found them in California. A simple time jump 10 years in the future can show how they have expanded.

When you're writing a story, then there has to be a setup and a payoff. The Fireflies regrouping in California was established throughout Abby's story in TLOU 2. The Payoff is what happened at the end of the game, which will likely continue in Part III.

Since TLOU MP is going to have a story and it takes place in California, it wouldn't surprise me if this story takes place between TLOU Part II and Part III.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
So far it's not. They're continuing with the story. The tease at the end of TLOU 2 was obvious.

You can change anything in fictional writing.

The Fireflies didn't exist before the outbreak..

Jump 20 years into the future, then we have had a story about the military and the FIreflies with a quick introduction.

It doesn't require a lot of work.

They had hundreds of Fireflies when Abby found them in California. A simple time jump 10 years in the future can show how they have expanded.

When you're writing a story, then there has to be a setup and a payoff. The Fireflies regrouping in California was established throughout Abby's story in TLOU 2. The Payoff is what happened at the end of the game, which will likely continue in Part III.

Since TLOU MP is going to have a story and it takes place in California, it wouldn't surprise me if this story takes place between TLOU Part II and Part III.
Sure, a future Fireflies faction could have the capacity to cure the world, doesn't retroactively mean part 1 Fireflies could too.

You don't seem to disagree with me that part 1(and part 2 IMO) Fireflies haven't been shown to be able to cure the world if they wanted to.
 

DForce

Member
Sure, a future Fireflies faction could have the capacity to cure the world, doesn't retroactively mean part 1 Fireflies could too.

You don't seem to disagree with me that part 1(and part 2 IMO) Fireflies haven't been shown to be able to cure the world if they wanted to.
They don't need to show it. As I said, it's a fictional story. Anything is possible. Their job was to create a vaccine. Disturbing that vaccine has many possibilities and doesn't have to be done overnight.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
They don't need to show it. As I said, it's a fictional story. Anything is possible. Their job was to create a vaccine. Disturbing that vaccine has many possibilities and doesn't have to be done overnight.
Neil Druckmann doesn't have to clarify I agree but in discussions about which side to root for at the hospital, it is an important detail that affects the favorability of one of the opposing sides.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom