cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/52327207

I mean The Last of Us was really good, I cat think of a better game /jk (The Last of Us was good though)

Was it really that good? It was just jump scares and ego-gun-tripping...mixed with decent voice acting...

I dog of plenty of better games

Lmao I just saw the typo. I wish we had physical keys still for phones.

You could probably carry around a small keyboard to plug into your phone if you really wanted to. I don't know how well it works with iPhone, but it should work just fine on Android.

Yes.

In this household, you jump on an enemy, and they invert and fall off the screen, unless they have spikes

When I played the original back on PS3, I would definitely say it's that good. To me, it did feel like it was the game making the generational leap. It's not so noticeable these days now that technology and game design has advanced so much, but my first playthrough was wonderful.

As a note: I haven't played the sequels, the remasters on modern consoles, or watched the TV show.

Works just fine on iOS too.

Yeah, kinda sucks actually. I remember having to jump on Combine and insert another coin when i want to get a Gravity Gun in Half Life 2.

I think it depends a lot on how much you like serious stories in your video games. I prefer lighthearted games so I didn't even make it through the first one, but my best friend loves them.

I played it about a year ago. I was pleasantly surprised. It's very well-done for it's time. It's a bit dated now but not in a bad way. I'd recommend it if you like horror and/or adventure games.

Video games in many cases now cost more to make than movies / tv. And for years video games have out sold movies.

Yet to this day the movie / tv industry still treats the gaming industry as an unloved red headed step child.

They do their own thing and the movie or tv show ends up flopping.

Rinse and repeat.

It's good historically. Publishers and developers didn't really care much about story in their games before then (2013). "Video Game story" was often horribly bad, like porn acting; but more often it was just forgettable. Like mandatory lubricant to keep the gameplay going, rather than a feature to make good. Think, Far Cry 3, Borderlands 2, Dishonored, etc. They're ok, but they don't make you really "feel" something. Mostly you just go around killing everything until it's done. Heck, speaking of which, even Doom Eternal (2020) has a coherent storyline and lore.

After The Last of Us, publishers suddenly realised that people actually really like it when their videogames have good stories, that make sense narratively, have twists, low plot holes, emotional investment and climax, etc. Now we have even better stories like Ghost of Tsushima, Expedition 33, Baldur's Gate 3, etc.

It's a bit dated now, but 13 years ago gaming was very different. It's actually expected nowadays for games to have a reasonably good story. Today, I would probably recommend the TV show instead for most people, or maybe a Let's Play.

Edit: I've triggered the gaming circle jerk "all retro games were perfect" rose tinted glasses crowd again. Seems to happen a lot

Edit 2: if you can't be bothered to actually read this comment properly, please don't reply. I don't care about your dumbass vibe-based opinions presented as "facts". Just downvote and move on, or enjoy the existing comments that already misread this. Your opinion is probably reflected somewhere below. Thanks.

There were no good games in 2004. None. I remember building building a computer with 1gb RAM, Pentium 4, and an ATI Radeon 9800xt... And just having nothing good to play.

/s

Half Life (1998) was considered revolutionary for putting all its cut scenes in game and you had to press E to listen to characters.

Final Fantasy 6 (1994) and 7 (1997) were considered masterpieces of storytelling

Myst was 1993

Sid Meier was making story based games in the mid 80s.

What's your point?

But why put Mario Bros in 1972?

You're conclusion isn't wrong but you're giving it credit for the wrong things. All of those elements were present in games that came long before, TLOU was just a lot more marketable.

The story-first approach made you feel in control of a zombie movie during peak zombie mania. You just binged The Walking Dead, what if you could play an episode...

In that sense, you're right that its success opened up a whole new market that we all benefit from. I knew so many people whose game libraries were like NBA 2k 2011, NBA 2k 2012, and The Last Of Us. It made a lot of non-hobbyists realize that games can be art.

It's a good game that would have earned a place in video game history regardless BUT it wasn't particularly innovative. It just did what it did very well

Your comment feels like it's trying to simultaneously agree with me and vaguely correct me at the same time. I'm not really sure what to make of it.

The Last of Us had the best story in gaming in quite a while. That's my opinion, backed up by the huge amount of media coverage and acclaim at the time. Yes, other games had stories in them, but they mostly sucked. They don't suck as much anymore, because that game made publishers and developers and players care more. That's my point.

You said

It's good historically. Publishers and developers didn't really care much about story in their games before then (2013). "Video Game story" was often horribly bad, like porn acting; but more often it was just forgettable. Like mandatory lubricant to keep the gameplay going, rather than a feature to make good.

[...]

After The Last of Us, publishers suddenly realised that people actually really like it when their videogames have good stories, that make sense narratively, have twists, low plot holes, emotional investment and climax, etc. Now we have even better stories [...]

My reply gives counter-examples

I didn't mean to come off as hostile because yes, I do agree with your conclusion that TLOU was a big deal for games. It was an accessible game that did all of the things you mentioned extremely well...but it wasn't the first to do any of them.

And highlighting just those games ignores the plethora with great stories and acting that just just didn't click with the mainstream. Try pitching a space opera to the average person in 2013...now try a zombie apocalypse. It got a boost from being in the right place at the right time.

I'm not insulting the game at all but that's like saying Bob Marley was the first to do reggae.

And you said

Not much

You're still being vague. I assume you're implying that the existence of games like Final Fantasy 7 (1997) having a good story for it's time, means that no other game from then on can have a story that's revolutionary for it's time? It's nonsensical. Technology improves, storywriting gets better, game mechanics get woven into the narrative.

Good stories in games back then were the exception, not the norm. Listing a few exceptions doesn't counter anything.

I'm sure they meant 1982.

you said not much, and this is a conversation not a contract negotiation in a court of law

The second game is arguably even better than the first. The story telling made me care about someone I did not think I would care about. Highly recommend you give it a playthrough!

As a reminder, my original comment was explaining the context of this game to somebody and why they would want to play it or not. You're the one that turned it into a debate with your list of "counter examples". Don't try and turn this shit around on me.

I mean it politely, but your explanation was, in my opinion, factually and culturally inaccurate. There were plenty of well-written stories with good voice acting in video games prior to The Last of Us.

Then you said you didn't understand the relevance of my comment. And then you said you didn't understand how my examples of earlier games contradicted your point about the Last of Us being the first good story-based game and suggested, inaccurately, that I had said "not much" - which I hadn't.

Then you said that because I had given counterexamples that doesn't mean that you were wrong because you had used uncountable modifiers on your adjectives - which, while technically true, is why I chose to say this isn't a court of law and while there are a bunch of modifiers in your post, whether you intended to or not, regardless of how granular you want to get over sentence composition, clearly reads that your original opinion was that you consider 2013 to be the time when game makers started making games about story instead of your choice of similie about pornography. I did and still do disagree.

But I do mean all of the above politely.

I wasn't saying that no games with good story existed before then; and I absolutely, definitively, didn't say TLOU was the first good story game, you're just making shit up now. I said it was uncommon, which it was.

You're allowed to disagree, but the fact your most recent "counterpoint example" was 16 whole years before TLOU kind of proves my point. You only have to look at the 5 years of gaming post-TLOU (2014–2019), and compare the average narrative quality to 2008–2013, to see the difference.

I dunno what an uncountably modified adjective is, so I'm just going to ignore that. I assume you're trying to save face by looking smart via thesaurus instead of admitting you made a big deal out of nothing.

Your "evidence" mostly amounts to deliberately framing my comments in the worst possible way, or maliciously misunderstanding them, and then attacking them. I believe they used to call that a "straw man", but I've been told I'm not allowed to use that phrase anymore, and I don't remember what the correct new term was.

Also, politely, on one hand, you say it's not a court of law, we're just having a conversation; then on the other hand have the audacity to pick over my exact word choices and sentence structure with a fine tooth comb. Is it only just a conversation when we're talking about your comments, and my comments are a legal document, then? I have no patience for Reddit brand pedantry today. Politely.

People like to belittle and demean things they think are a threat to their bottom line, especially if they don't actually understand it.

Recently encountered this with people knocking FOSS as "children's software", clearly because they've already sunk enormous cost into their expensive licensed corporate pipeline and they don't want a FOSS artist getting a piece.

It’s pretty hilarious to me the mental gymnastics some people will go through to refuse to admit that the gameplay is hugely improved in the sequel just because they don’t like one thing that happened in the story.

Lol, lots of games before The Last of Us had fantastic stories.

Oh no, not another one

You didn't trigger a circle jerk. You're just wrong. And based on your other comments in this thread, not a very pleasant person.

You didn't even read my comment properly. If anyone's wrong here, it's objectively you, since the comment is still there for anyone to read and compare; in it's original, non-misinterpreted form. You and the other commenter somehow read one thing and ended up with a completely different conclusion, and then smugly make fun of / attack my comment based on those incorrect interpretations. So forgive me for forgoing the pleasantries in the face of unpleasantness.

So: what, specifically, in my original comment is factually incorrect? Not paraphrasing. Actually carefully read my comment and directly quote the part you disagree with. Also, since apparently I'm not just of an opposing opinion to you, but actually completely "wrong", explain how it's wrong, exactly. No vagueness.

Publishers and developers before 2013 did not care much about the story.

This is the claim that is objectively and philosophically ignorant

That's both misquoted and out of context.

Publishers and developers didn't really care much about story in their games before then (2013). "Video Game story" was often horribly bad, like porn acting; but more often it was just forgettable

Notice the qualifiers. "didn't really care much", "often horribly bad", "more often it was just forgettable". None of those are absolute terms talking about every goddamn publisher and every game made before then.

You also use that word "objectively" without giving any counterpoints. I don't think that word means what you think it means; you can't have an objective opinion piece. So kindly fuck right off with your high horse "ignorant".

I didn't get from OPs comment that they didn't play the second one for any particular reason. They didn't really add any qualifiers as to why they didn't play it.

Qualifiers are just a weak defensive delimiter but you didn't want to know when you asked, you just wanted to whine

It's been 21 days man, move on with your life. Try arguing in good faith next time.

Maybe stop arguing then, we are just engaging in responding to your nonsense