Why everyone ignores the issues in TLOU?

@PurpleMan5000: Yeah I agree with that. Most reviewers aren't actually reviewing the whole game the way movie critics or book critics must review the entire work of art they critique. Personally, it takes me a very long time of playing a game, and looking back at it and playing it again to give a true assessment of my feelings for it.

Then there are games like fighters which really cannot be reviewed until the community gets their hands on them and tinkers with the game's mechanics for at least a month.

I wish you would be a professional critic. Those reviews I'd read.

@Heil68 said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

@Heil68 said:

Top 5 GOAT by the Naughty Gods.

Keep the HYPE going.

Praise the Sony Gods!

Yeah most of the enemies end up being human which I thought was really nice.

While I think TLOU deserves it's praise, the game is certainly not without flaw. I think reviewers get so enamored with making a profound statement about the emotional investment, characters and narrative in the game that they choose to overlook the gameplay flaws.... after all that would be the trendy thing to do right?

I think the 8 gamespot gave it is too low, but the game isn't a 10 either.

I don't think you can really use the remaster as a show of what naughty dog can do with the ps4 at this point. Given what ND has said they didn't really try to address the game mechanics so the ai stuff being the same shouldn't be that surprising. It seemed that the goal was to bring what the ps3 version was with an uptick in performance akin to using higher settings on a PC. Largely using much of what had been there already.

I am interested in seeing what Rockstar has done since the trailer for gta v for the PC and next gen did show more then just a purely visual and slight performance upgrade.

yeah, certainly not perfect, I'd give it a 9.9 GOTY score,

@dave123321: Correct dave...

That the AI remained the same is not very surprising but I honestly thought things like pop ins would be fixed/greatly improved (if they were a problem in the original, I haven't played it so I don't know) in the remastered version. It seems like a smarter thing to do than increasing the draw distance and better shadows as excessive pop ins are really noticeable and take away some of the immersion.
It's not a deal breaker by any means though and this is the only game so far that actually makes me want to buy a ps4.

Because not major issue. No game is perfect, every game hav issue but they are judge as package and this is GOTG because everything is of high quality and nothing sacrifice- graphic, gameplay, control, story, music, multiplayer design. Not full next generation game, definite up port but well done.

Actually, didn't McShea's original review note some things that break immersion? And he got shit on by this board.

I don't ignore the flaws in the game, but I found they didn't greatly decrease my overall enjoyment.

true, but it is damn impressive how good this game looks sometimes.

@handssss said:

@dave123321 said:

I don't think you can really use the remaster as a show of what naughty dog can do with the ps4 at this point. Given what ND has said they didn't really try to address the game mechanics so the ai stuff being the same shouldn't be that surprising. It seemed that the goal was to bring what the ps3 version was with an uptick in performance akin to using higher settings on a PC. Largely using much of what had been there already.

I am interested in seeing what Rockstar has done since the trailer for gta v for the PC and next gen did show more then just a purely visual and slight performance upgrade.

true, but it is damn impressive how good this game looks sometimes.

Does Photo mode have a tilt-shift setting or something?

you're an awful cow. what happened to you?

Probably they are not ignored, only that the game is great even with those flaws. Those are important issues, and in other games they would impact score more than they did, but from what everyone says (I wouldn't know myself because I've never played it), it's just that the quality provided in other aspects make up for it. This is a guess. What's your opinion on this, people are turning a blind eye on this? Reviewers turned a blind eye on these flaws?

So the question becomes do the flaws you mentioned break the immersion so bad that it does merit a lower score? You're thinking objectively. Reviews aren't written that way. They're written based on experience. And there's plenty of games we've all played that have a myriad of flaws but we don't care because our experience was great. Same principle.

If the human AI is going to bumble around like an idiot, I would honestly rather the enemy AI just ignore them. That is a lot less annoying than having them give up my position so I have to reload for no reason whatsoever.

@Bread_or_Decide: Game journalists have been doing this for a very long time. They're not excited about getting a game early anymore. It becomes normal pretty quickly.

I'd defend the more objective approach. The objective approach can result in various very good/almost perfect or even perfect qualities making up to few bad points even if these are very, very bad. Objectively, a score doesn't start from a perfect 10 and suffers discounts. This the subjective method, coming from a perfect idea, the ideal game, we have in our heads. The objective one, builds an overall score from 0 to 10, ground up, out of other 0-10 scores awarded to separate aspects, judging each one according to how the game fares in comparison to other games in it's own context... that's one way to say that what's a 6/10 in AI to you doesn't change an 8/10 or 9/10 final score in the case of there being enough 9/10 or 10/10 things, since in those the game does better then other competing games or is unique in some way (graphics, sounds, story, etc.).

True but they ignore it. Some games like TLOU and Skyrim are full of glitches, pop ins, freezes etc and the reviewers don't count it against the games score, yet the same reviewers will take a game they don't like and use minor glitches as a way of justifying a lower score.

I have said the AI thing since last July. Also the fact that Joel and Tess take the escort job in order to get their guns back. But through beginning of the game they could have picked up many guns of the people they killed. Terrible hole.

That's an interesting point. The problem I'm seeing is that in order to have an objective review, that means there has to be an absolute standard. As much as a person can build an objective score from 0/10 based on other micro scores, those micro scores are naturally subjective in nature because there's no over-arching standard to base the objectivity of something like AI on. That would make objective scores actually subjective.

And subjective scores aren't based from a "perfect" idea in our head because it's not impossible for a game to surpass what our idea of "perfection" is. It's based on experience. We have an idea of what our experience should be. When a game doesn't match that experience, that affects the score and obviously the written or verbal recommendation and analysis. If it exceeds our expected experience, obviously that bodes well in favor of the game. I think that's a more accurate representation of what you're saying concerning the subjective reasoning.

Earth defense force has more bugs

Because not everyone double dipping this game, own Ps3 version is enough...dont know if you speak true or lying, nuff said

Well, gaming journalism is a joke, so that's probably why.

What game doesn't have a few issues?

Who gives a shit. I'm a PC gamer and think it's hilarious to constantly see console gamers complain about textures, lighting and "jaggies" of all things.

LOL...get a PC

Seems like issues with hardware over the game.

Red dead redemption was one of the buggies, glitchest, inconsistent technical marvel I have ever loved from rockstar. Yes tc, you are not picking because you choose to, a product that offers satisfaction on a high scale is considered top grade, doesn't mean it's flawless, it just means those flaws are nit picking level and that is what you are doing tc

I hardly follow this game and I heard about the terrible AI many times.. no one ever ignored that

Many reviewers consider the gameplay to be terrible and not as good as Halflife 2.

The reason for not being brought up appears be be faith that you, the reader, instinctively know, know.

I'd be curious to see any reviewer comparing it to HL2...links?

your answer:

That's not the impression I get from book and movie reviews. Actually, IMO, gaming reviews seem much more exhaustive.

Pop ins .... thats your problem and makes game not fun for you ? I mean seriously now ?

good game, score 7.5

oh wait. its a console exclusive?

then 9

oh wait! lots of ads on our site??!!

10 GOTY

yes, because awards make a OK game turn into GOTY

Doesn't mean much. Just much more media\websites now than it used to be.

And that sir ... is your opinion and by your logic and what i just read your opinion >>> Professional journalism ... well not really.

@Heil68 said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

@Heil68 said:

Top 5 GOAT by the Naughty Gods.

Keep the HYPE going.

With that i think this topic ends

This game is not TLOU 2. Get over it.

Probably the same reason the slew of flaws in Uncharted are ignored

the fireflies at the end of the game all had military grade assault rifles. weapons like this are more than likely what joel and tess were doing the job for. Throughout the game, most enemies usually only had pistols and pipes and barely any ammunition to spare.

It already flopped here so their fans are ignoring these failures as much as possible and pretending everything was ok.

Studying writing now. You are placing a hole fix that isnt confirmed for the writers. Thats not good. If a writer introduces something in their story they need to address its validity and conflicts, not have the audience come up with maybe

He was never a good cow to begin with. lol