The Last of Us Gamecritics Review

GameCritics: "I'd say that the kind of story that The Last of Us wants to tell can't be done in a mainstream video game, but I Am Alive and the Metro series manage just fine. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that it can't be done in the kind of game that's expected to sell three million copies."

[Thatguy-310]

Though I don't agree with the review I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But when you find yourself in the minority then something must be wrong. Especially when you criticize something that the game is actually known for accomplishing very well with other reviewers which in this case is the story.

[GamerzElite]

These reviews are only a cheap stunt to hit a website.

[toxic-inferno]

Since when is giving a game 8/10 a cheap stunt? That's still a good review, and while I personally think TLOU is the greatest game I've ever played, the whole point of a review is to give you an opinion on that game.

To give the game 3/10 would be a cheap stunt...

[GamerzElite]

@toxic-inferno Have u read his review? He has complain about low ammo, He don't wanna fight with Clickers, He has problem with Ellie AI (Most of people also complain abt partner AI, but the gameplay is very difficult so ND make easy for player otherwise it become never ending game), He didn't understand why military is in game (and he claimed he finished the game), Game is long (16 hours of gameplay). WTF

[Utalkin2me]

@toxic-inferno

Just goes to show you did not read the review at all. And just clearly commented on the title. Cause the review is kind of embarrassing, he clearly had a disconnect with the game that most people did not.

[HyFackingDro]

damn it... since its not a perfect score the entire n4g community is going to be furious...

[Utalkin2me]

@HyFackingDro

Sorry, i speak my opinion. Everyone has a opinion. The point is to back up your opinion with some solid statements, which the reviewer did not.

I understand it hurts your feelings the game has been getting so much praise and deservedly so. But maybe you would feel better in posting on some of the MS flip flopping articles.

[schlanz]

Everyone has an opinion. Unfortunately that doesn't mean every opinion is a respectable one.

**** this guy's opinion.

[LOGICWINS]

At one point the majority of people didn't believe women should vote and that blacks were worth three-fifths of their white counterparts. Most gamers buy copy and paste FPS games instead of "masterpieces" like TLOU or MGS. Being in the minority doesn't always mean something is wrong. In fact, there are many scenarios where the majority is wrong and the minority became the new majority. This has occured throughout history.

[Shane Kim]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDBlqu 6KF4k

[Hicken]

That would, normally, be a valid point.

But it's utterly irrelevant here, because this minority is choosing to be so, and doing so for personal gain(hits).

[HammadTheBeast]

I have no problem with a review if you can back your points up. In this case, he himself complains about the storyline when he himself has missed out information which is his fault.

Next, he says there's "too many people running around for an apocalyptic game". Now, do you honestly believe this is a valid complaint?

Another complaint he has is "we don't experience the world we want to save". That is not the point of the game. The point is the relationship between Joel and Ellie.

Overall, it just seems like a case of "bad player".

8/10 isn't a bad score, but I honestly believe it deserves more. 8/10 is good, not great, and TLoU is truly one of the few defining games of the generation.

[wishingW3L]

what if the majority are sheep? It happens very often, just look at Justin Bieber's popularity for example.

But to be honest, his complaints are retarded.

[CrossingEden]

"if you don't agree with the popular opinion, you are wrong"
-n4g users

[Pope_Kaz_Hirai_II]

Another troll review moving on.

[MelonSaurus]

Since when does being in the minority automatically mean you're wrong?

[Philoctetes]

I haven't even been tempted to skip a cutscene during my second playthrough of this game. I'd say that's pretty good storytelling.

[InTheLab]

I pretty much have to skip Tess and the hotel section....

[HammadTheBeast]

Cause of how sad it is?

[Lovable]

I just love it when reviewers try to criticize something that is pretty much in every single game. They want realism, but why isn't an issue in every single game you review? You can't look in one direction and then turn around when you see fit. You need to be consistent which in all fairness I haven't seen a valid reason why anyone would not like the game.

[Hydralysk]

Well there's obviously valid reasons. I have a friend who only plays fighting games and doesn't care about storytelling, and that's a perfectly valid reason why he wouldn't like the game.

This review however doesn't hold up for me for a number of reasons:

"Nearly every person the player meets is a bloodthirsty murderer so committed to cruelty that they'll pursue it even against their own self-interest."

If you aren't counting the nameless mooks, the bloodthirsty murderer part isn't remotely true. Most characters with a name are fairly sympathetic. Plus the game goes out of it's way to explain the unnamed grunts are murdering outsiders for supplies since those are so scarce, or they are hunting you for different reasons relating to survival which I won't spoil.

"human enemies can happily spend all day firing round after round at the player, yet almost never drop ammo when they die. It's an obvious attempt to generate pressure from ammo scarcity, but in the context of the game it makes no sense. This lack of ammo also creates a hilarious cognitive disconnect because in the many scenes where players kill hordes of zombies, it's rare to find a single infected without bullets, molotov cocktails, or a canister of flamethrower fuel (!!!) on their corpse."

I played through the game first on Hard, and second on Survivor, and this statements rings completely false for me. I NEVER found a molotov cocktail on an infected (usually found those on the guys who threw molotovs amazingly enough), in fact I rarely found loot on them at all. There also definitely wasn't any increase in the amount of supplies I found from infected versus humans enemies. I can understand if it's different on Normal, but you're stating the game in general plays like that, and that's just false.

"Other than one single segment, the game never explores the possibilities of a post-human America, and the developers' need to constantly throw players into brutal fights leaves them without the chance to get to know the characters outside of cut-scenes."

This I call complete bullshit on. There is TONS of dialogue used to flesh out characters outside of cutscenes, both in prompts where you can talk to characters about something in the environment, and in conversations that happen just while you're walking around. In addition I can't see what you mean by it 'never exploring post-human America', the entire game is an exploration of this. It might not be an exploration you like (I'll admit it's not the most original), but it's definitely deals with that topic in a (imo) well executed fashion.

[trenso1]

if the reviewer found those items on survivors and infected they were playing normal or easy because those are the only modes that have drops like that often on dead enemies.

[Hydralysk]

I noted that it might be because of the difficulty level, but I also said that it's no excuse.

If you don't play on Normal or Easy those criticisms are false, yet the way he phrases it he's saying they're problems with the game as a whole.

I wouldn't of minded if he said it as "If you're playing on Normal or Easy the frequency of drops can get a bit ridiculous because *insert reasons*. Those looking for a tougher time should probably play on hard (or survivor if it's unlocked) where resources are more scarce." That way he's acknowledging the issue exists, while pointing out that it's dependent on difficulty.

[matgrowcott]

Poor pacing in the first half; countless annoying glitches; average stealth mechanics when compared with other third person action-stealth titles (Batman specifically); an over-reliance on "random" encounters to increase length of game; side characters who are more notice boards for the world as opposed to individual characters.

Animation problems. Lighting problems. AI problems. Scripted event problems. Invisible wall problems. Multiplayer problems.

There's a lot right about TLOU, but any professional reviewer that gives this game a 10/10 needs to check their hype.

@McScroggz

I'm a professional writer, mostly focussing on the gaming industry, and have been for 5 years. I have two books coming out in the next year, as well as being lead writer on a comedy series that is launching in December.

I can send you a CV if it helps you at all?

- by the way, feel free add why you feel any of the above is wrong. I reckon at least half of them are technical faults, not based on opinion.

[McScroggz]

Good thing you're here to set the record straight!

Wait, who are you?

[Psychonaut]

Your comment holds no water, Action-Stealth and you say BATMAN. A stealth game to me is: THEIF, is a stealth title game, the old Siren games, Sly Cooper 1, Syphon Filter, Splinter Cell before Conviction, Manhunt, WindBack (N64), and Metal Gear-Metal Gear Solid nintendo/PSX, and the PS1 Tenchu games. Those are stealth titles, if you run in you die, if you mess up you die. Batman Arkham series are great games but if you are "spotted" you hit one button and you're hidden again.

Though I can agree with you at the same time Ellie's AI did get in my way a fair amount, her biggest issue is when sneaking around her, and any other AI will run about with flashlights on, and chatting. That does bring you out of the sneak/stealth moments.

I personally have had no animation problems, could you care to tell me what has happened to you? or I guess you have heard happen. (This is me actually asking you, and not being crass or anything.)

My rating for the game is a 10/10 or a 5 out of 5 and not because everything is perfect or polished about the game but that the story is good, the game does what its meant to do and make you feel invested for the characters, I (personally) wanted to keep Ellie safe, and felt a connection with her.

This is something I have not felt since ICO'. When reviewers give their score I don't think there is such a thing as a PERFECT game inside in out, BUT a game, a story that will stand the test of time, and define the console its sold on.

I am not a professional writer, and the fact you had to validate your own comment by stating you were one is just...needy. I do not run around saying what my career is. Let you comment stand on what merit it has if any, saying your a writer to drive your point home on a community forum is stupid.

[Hydralysk]

Can you please explain what you mean by Animation/Lighting/Scripted events/Invisible wall problems?

The animations and lighting in the game were some of the best I've seen in games. I also can't remember running into a single invisible wall the entire game (areas are blocked off but aside from cliffs I can't think of any invisible barriers). I'm not sure what you mean by scripted event problems either, I never noticed any technical hiccups during scripted sequences myself.

The AI companion stealth issue I agree is annoying, and I can totally understand that grating on someone. Multiplayer is something I don't intend to touch so I won't comment on that.

I'm not saying problems don't exist, but I really can't understand what you mean by most of the problems you listed.

[Lovable]

@mat
Some of your complaints are subjective. Also, the majority of the stuff you're complaining exist in about every single game out there. If we're going with this basis then no game should get 10/10. We might as well scrap the whole grading system as no game even in the future will be release without such problems.

[matgrowcott]

@Psychonaut

Thief isn't an action-stealth game. It's a stealth game. That there's action isn't enough to cross genres, whereas there's too much straight combat in TLOU (and Batman) to warrant the stealth tag, especially when, for the majority of people who play, the stealth is entirely optional.

"I personally have had no animation problems, could you care to tell me what has happened to you? or I guess you have heard happen."

If you want a quick example, play the horse segment. If you don't see animation issues here, you're not looking. Also any time Joel is near a wall.

Rarer examples include flame animation not loading properly (and a white square appearing in its place, either on certain frames or entirely). These are things that have happened to me.

"My rating for the game is a 10/10 or a 5 out of 5 and not because everything is perfect or polished about the game but that the story is good, the game does what its meant to do and make you feel invested for the characters, I (personally) wanted to keep Ellie safe, and felt a connection with her."

But I'm guessing you're not a professional critic, and if you are your editor should call you out on this.

Really, really liking a game isn't enough to warrant a high score. For users, fine, they'll vote with their gut. Professionals shouldn't though.

@Hydralysk

"lighting"

Moving from inside to outside isn't natural. There are also parts of the game that are "too dark," thanks in part to a fairly weak torch.

"Scripted events"

There are multiple times throughout the game when the developers want you to do things in a very specific way, and if you don't you'll die or you'll see cracks in the gameplay.

Two things I can think of off the top of my head. Opening few minutes, you'll be chased by an infected. If you look around to see what's actually chasing you, you'll die. If you go too fast, your brother will stop still and ask you to keep moving, despite the fact that you are and are, in fact, probably in front of him.

The second time is when breaking into the school. You need to wait, regardless of the situation, for both NPCs to make it through the window before you're allowed in.

There are a lot of moments like this throughout, and they definitely break immersion. Do this more that a few times and you'll definitely run into invisible walls.

They're issues. They're not always gamebreaking, they're not always even that annoying, but they're still issues.

@Loveable

"Some of your complaints are subjective"

Yes they are. I said that myself above.

"Also, the majority of the stuff you're complaining exist in about every single game out there."

So you're saying that we should ignore problems that exist throughout the industry? If they exist, they should be called out. Simple as that.

"We might as well scrap the whole grading system as no game even in the future will be release without such problems."

Not true. Take something like Ocarina of Time. Not perfect - there were some glitches hidden away in there - but it did what it wanted to do and it did it to an incredible standard.

If Naughty Dog had added an extra sideplot to the first half of the game and if they'd have sorted out a few of the more pressing issues before release, I'd have happily said 9.5, maybe even 10. It's not about intention, but how well the game lives up to that intention.

[McScroggz]

Why is the pacing poor? To establish a more frantic pace or have a series of smaller combat segments would undermine the deliberate pacing. Because it starts off slow we aren't given a false sense of action; but instead, we get to naturally grow along with the characters.

As far as countless annoying glitches, I encountered only a few. Maybe you were less fortunate than I.

The stealth mechanics were actually pretty brilliant. The "super hearing" isn't so good it can be abused (unless you max it out, which probably isn't going to happen until near the end or a new game plus). You are actually using stealth like a real person would, like using bottles to distract and learning the patterns of your enemies. The Batman games had great stealth in that it made you feel like Batman; planning a series of takedowns like a real life mousetrap for baddies. In The Last of Us, I felt like a guy actually stalking about.

I guess you could argue there were too many "random" encounters. I disagree for the most part, but there were a couple times were it felt slightly out of place.

"Side characters who are more notice boards for the world as opposed to individual characters." I simply do not know who you are talking about. The weakest side characters were Henry and Sam, and while I'll give you some of their scenes/actions felt a little shallow they still had a poignant and important role in the game. Up until Henry we felt justified in the measures we took to survive and upset that he left us to die, but when Henry told Joel he would have done the same it made us realize that everybody who has survived in the world had to be capable of making the selfish choice to do what's prudent.

I don't know what animation problems you are talking about. This game has some of the best animations ever. Sure, a couple times a character acted dumb by standing in my way, but I would sincerely hope that isn't considered something that detracts from a game - especially when, like I said, the animations are so good. I mean, when walking along a wall your character actually slides his/her hand along it to keep balance. If you are talking about Elli and co. not breaking stealth when out in the open, I'm perfectly fine with that. I guess it is a technical flaw, but it seems petty to hold it against the game.

The AI was great, unless you are talking about Ellie.

The lighting wasn't perfect. There was a glow around characters sometimes, and occasionally the game was too dark.

Invisible wall problems. And you say you are a professional writer focusing on the gaming industry?

I would hope that as a professional writer, you would understand that a perfect score does not imply a perfect game. No game is or will ever be perfect. Assuming you acknowledge that, I would also hope that you wouldn't downgrade a score for a game that does so many key things so incredibly well, including things almost never seen in video games such as the subtle character moments (Joel looking at his watch after Ellie says something) just because it has a handful of fairly minor flaws.

There IS a difference between a review and a critical analysis. A review weighs the good and bad, and doesn't just dock points for each flaw.

[matgrowcott]

"Because it starts off slow we aren't given a false sense of action."

Ok, you're either being deliberately obtuse or you just haven't played the game. There's a hell of a lot of action in the first half of the game.

A lack of action isn't my problem.

Take a look at The Godfather as an example of slow pacing done right. There aren't enough layers in the early part of the game to keep the momentum going. There needed to be an overarching plot between leaving the zone and meeting the brothers. Maybe it feels too episodic to me.

"In The Last of Us, I felt like a guy actually stalking about."

To be fair, they captured this very well.

It's the little things that serve to detract from the whole. The grab button is way too loose to work as well as it should 100% of the time. Enemies can and will suddenly see you for no reason, while other times they'll walk past you WHILE LOOKING AT YOU.

The objectives of stealth segments seem to be a little on the loose side as well. This is only reinforced by moments, like at the university, where sneaking through will only lead you to a moment where you need to kill everybody, or where getting out of that situation will require to make a jump or do something that is almost certainly going to get you into a fire fight.

There are very few situations where pure stealth will work out.

"I guess you could argue there were too many "random" encounters. "

It wasn't just that they felt out of place, although it often did, but that it was often just used as a barrier between you and your objective. "Hey, there's a door over here, but first you're going to have to walk very slowly in the direction of that door."

"You haven't had a fight for a while. Go ahead - enemies."

I'd have rather just soaked up more of the world, had more conversation between Joel and Ellie, than have another fight/stealth segment where the stakes seemed very low.

"I simply do not know who you are talking about."

Everyone. Tess (a character I actually liked) is the embodiment of the importance of the quest. Bill is the personification of the paranoia that most characters you meet will feel towards you. The brothers represent loss and the frail link of family, but also the fact that people are barely have anything left to live for.

We don't know much about them. They're basically stereotypes for the part of the plot they represent.

"I would hope that as a professional writer, you would understand that a perfect score does not imply a perfect game."

A perfect score implies a game that is as good as it can be. That's not the case for The Last of Us. It could have been better, fairly easily. It could have used more QA testing.

The fact that you have said over and over that there are issues here shows that it isn't a 10/10 game. That you dismiss calling out those issues as "petty" says that you really liked the game, and that's fine, but it does nothing to support your opinion except to other people that really liked the game.

@psychonaut

"The fact you had to validate your own comment by stating you were one is just...needy."

I was asked who I was. I explained. I wasn't validating my comment, I was responding to a rude reply with my own. I can appreciate why you might miss the context if you read chronologically.

My other references to professional Vs fan/userbase were purely to point out the gap that should exist between "gamers" and "the press," but which often doesn't.

[P_Bomb]

[QUOTE]'m a professional writer, mostly focussing on the gaming industry, and have been for 5 years. I have two books coming out in the next year, as well as being lead writer on a comedy series that is launching in December. I can send you a CV if it helps you at all? [/QUOTE

Oi. With all due respect, ego isn't evidence. What makes you more professional than say, the 87 published writers on metacritic that have aggregated this game to a high score? None of the reviews I've read justified their opinions with CV plugs. You made a lot of claims before backing em up, and I believe that's what got you that response from McScroggz.

Adam Sessler and Jim Sterling both "tenned" this game and explained themselves very well imo. Attempting to discredit such perfect scores by way of 'hype' and calling their professionalism into question on the basis of technical faults from hardware limitations and your own hype, is a big salvo for a first post.

I simply did not experience the tech issues you did, and was able to 360 my camera many times during the zombie chase intro (even right past the last slope to the ambulance) without dying. Just finished my 3rd playthrough on Survivor+. But maybe that's just it, I was too busy playing the game at its peak challenge to notice a late texture off the beaten path or on an item drop that wouldn't even happen on Survivor. Most players don't deliberately go looking for trouble, trying to get stuck on objects or cue that HDR lighting transition, proclaiming victory when they finally do bug. That's what testers get paid to do. Reviewers are supposed to tell ya if there's meat on the bones. You don't need a degree to have an emotional, gut reaction to something.

[McScroggz]

"A perfect score implies a game that is as good as it can be. That's not the case for The Last of Us. It could have been better, fairly easily. It could have used more QA testing."

And you call me obtuse? There is a definite difference between assigning the highest score possible to a piece of entertainment and ascribing it perfect. Not just video games follow this principle either. Your statement implies that the highest score implicitly means a perfect game, which is most assuredly wrong.

I acknowledged the issues you brought up that I agreed were flaws, though some of them I believe are petty. It's my opinion that if a critic or professional reviewer is so cynical that they refuse to score something as highly as possibly unless it is perfect, which all but negates the possibility of the highest score possible, as somebody who has lost sight of their purpose.

Out of everything I said in my previous comment, I feel like the most important is the difference between a review and a critical analysis. Concerning your viewpoint of the side characters, I feel it is a perfect example of a critical analysis of supporting characters. That you view them in such a technical, cold perspective only makes me believe you actively wish to dissect the game more than soak up the experience. In nearly every work of fiction the majority of side characters serve to either move the plot further or provide a thematic relationship to connect the reader/viewer/gamer to a certain element in the protagonist.

While I don't think everything you've brought up concerning The Last of Us is accurate, I'm willing to admit that most of your criticisms have validity. But that doesn't mean that if I, or a professional reviewer, still gives TLOU a 10 that we are ignoring those flaws. I'll repeat it once more, a perfect score absolutely does not mean a perfect game. If you feel otherwise, then you are wrong. No professional reviewer in any medium that I've heard of rejects giving a product the highest score possible unless it's perfect because any professional reviewer worth their salt would acknowledge that no piece of entertainment is perfect.

[Hydralysk]

@mat

Thanks for clearing that up.

I can somewhat agree with you on the pacing bit. Not on the entire first half of the game mind you, but I feel the part between the '20 years later' moment and meeting Ellie for the first time could have been handled better. Basically they kinda wasted Robert Atkin Downes for a tutorial that was just long enough to get a bit boring, and not long enough to give us any good payoff in terms of story to balance it out. Once past that (except for Pittsburgh being a bit too long) I thought the pacing to be pretty spot on.

In terms of lighting I can't say I ever really noticed the problems you're talking about. Not saying they don't exist, but I don't see their impact. Same goes for animations, I can't say I remember ever seeing a bad looking animation in the bunch.

As for scripted sequences I can see where you're coming from now, but I guess I succeeded at most of them on my first try. For me they only really became noticeable when I was on my second playthrough and knew what was going to happen ahead of time, which didn't bother me by then.

I also see what you mean by invisible walls, though since most of them I can think of involve Ellie going through before you I felt it made sense when taking the story into account. I can see how they'd be annoying, and they force you to fight an extra second or two instead of leaping to safety, but in terms of the story I don't think Joel would retreat to safety before Ellie so it at least made the restriction make sense.

I had a pretty glitch free experience and never encountered any bugs at all. I never used the flamethrower since it came so late in the game so maybe that helped.

To weigh in on the score debate, I don't really care about scores since they current 6-10 model is incredibly arbitrary, and more often than not ruled by hype. I can at least see where you are coming from with most of your criticisms though, even I don't agree with how important they are, which I can respect.

[Imalwaysright]

Blah blah blah You call yoursef a "professional writer" but the majority of the other "professional writers" disagree with you as most of them gave TLoU perfect or near perfect scores and I personally agree with those scores.

To me perfect scores should be given to games that are landmarks in this industry and imo TLoU is a landmark in storytelling and its not a few animations or lighting problems that would change my mind on that and I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that way.

Being a "professional writer" doesn't give you the right to tell other people how they should review a game or what their thought process should be when they're writting a review. You're a "professional writer" and you should know by now that a review is nothing more than a personal opinion and if you can't grasp that simple concept you should consider a career change.

[Jasimulator]

Sir: never lose that spirit.

First of all, my favorite games which I gave them 10/10 this generation are Metal Gear 4 and Uncharted 2, but 10/10 for TLOU? common guys you're just caught in the hype-storm like everybody else, the action and the story were excellent but the stealth mechanic were just okay, just go back and play Batman and try to stealth-kill someone then try TLOU again to see what I mean, also the bullet-free enemies after they have been shooting u for half an hour is just so stupid when u come to think of it, don't get me wrong I completed the game on my first walk-through on Hard and I rarely used any guns because I LOVED the hand fighting.

Great game, no one can argue that, but it could have been better, and I really wish to see another part on PS4.

8/10.

[HammadTheBeast]

^

To the guys saying Batman is a great stealth game, you have to re-evaluate and replay the game.

Batman's stealth is highly forgiving. Splinter Cell for example, is not. In batman, press a button, you're stealthed or get into an easy fight and win.

But please, don't say Batman has better stealth than the last of us lol.

[Jasimulator]

@HammadTheBeast

Well, I've to disagree with you on that, next time when you play TLOU try to hide behind a bar or on one side of a car, then when u see an enemy coming towards you, let's say he is in front of the car now, try to switch sides by sliding on the car, at that moment u will be 6-7 inches away from the enemy before u go behind him, but guess what? he will keep moving like nothing, then u can easily kill him, so if that was not "forgiving" I don't know what it is.

[Knushwood Butt]

I fell through the floor into a transparent void during the university sequence, but then going into the pause menu for a minute and going back to the game magically fixed it.

Beyond that, I don't recall any other bugs during my first run (although the one above is quite a biggie).

[jammy_70]

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but it is FACT that this game is better than 8

[CrossingEden]

"my opinion is better then yours, its a FACT that this game is better than an 8, because opinions don't exist"

[jeeves86]

That's not exactly how reviews work...

[ltachiUchiha]

Im surprised this wasnt posted here already, since i seen it on meta site a few days ago.

[James Vanderbeek]

im like 30% done with the game and its the best i have played since metal gear solid 4. single player only.

[OmniSlashPT]

This game is better than anything done in the genre, its the pinnacle of AAA games this gen and of storytelling. Srls it's easily a 10/10 game.

By reading it i guess he didnt understand thus hated the ending. He doesnt even understand that Joel isnt supposed to be likable, its supposed to be as human as possible, in the end he can even be seen as the bad guy of the game, and thats how good ND is at developing characters.

I just love reading reviews in which the writer has absolutely no interest or has done no research into the game he's playing and just makes ignorant criticism /s

[No_Limit]

Wow people, so when is a 80/10 a bad score. Maybe that one person that play it didn't like certain aspect of it.

I got the game myself 4 days ago, I gave it a 9/10 myself, one of the best game I'd played this year but my friend said he hated the pace and shooting mechanic. Different folks, different stroke.

[ltachiUchiha]

I have no problem with an 8 aslong as the review brings valid points on his/her review. What i hate the most is when reviewers write a solid written review & says, "Masterpiece & Best Game This Gen" & they give it a an 8. Then u go read their review on other reviews of games in the same genre & they give those games a better score despite TLOU being better in every possible way compared to its rivals. I mean seriously WTF.

[McScroggz]

I think the whole, "It's a 7/10 or 8/10 which is still a good score," is a cop-out. An 8/10 is a good score for a game without high expectations or much fanfare, but for a game that has more perfect scores than any other on Metacritic an 8/10 is a bad score for the game unless the review does a good job of explaining why. This review does not, in my opinion.

In fact, it's kind of embarrassing in my opinion.

[Williamson]

The best game I've ever played on a console, it gives a great experience. Having low health and barely any supplies while having to deal with other survivors is really harsh and you need to make sure every move counts.

[McScroggz]

I tried to give the writer the benefit of the doubt. I understand that the bulk of the sites that post on n4g are from amateurs, thus there are varying levels of quality both in writing and overall intelligent opinions. However, this is just a bad review - and not because I inherently disagree with the score.

Some of the negative arguments are just, odd. The writing in this game is poor? There is an emphasis on action? Human enemies "fire endlessly" (which is hyperbolic) but don't drop ammo enough?

"The Last of Us is gorgeous and intermittently thrilling, but it's too bad that it doesn't have the courage to be the game that it could have been. Other than one single segment, the game never explores the possibilities of a post-human America, and the developers' need to constantly throw players into brutal fights leaves them without the chance to get to know the characters outside of cut-scenes."

Ok, now this is honestly just stupid, and I don't even think I need to explain myself. We don't get to know Joel and Ellie? What do you want to know their favorite f'ing colors?

Move along people, this is just click-bait.

[GribbleGrunger]

This is a review riddled with inconstancy and contradiction. After he talks in depth about the fact we don't understand why all humans we meet seem bloodthirsty, he says this:

"The human foes are just as well-drawn. It's clear that an art team with an eye for detail did an exceptional job of making them look weathered and beaten down by their lives. Desperation drips from every pore of the human foes, easily selling the idea that they're as dangerous as any zombie."

Thus demonstrating the author manufactured a reason to bring the score down to a 'controversial' level in order to garner hits. 8/10 is still a good score but it's totally against the majority viewpoint.

It's not really about the score though, it's about the actual reasoning behind the score.

[ufo8mycat]

I assume the reviewer is just looking for hits?

If not I feel sorry for him, because he has poor taste in games and he should just quit his job if he can't give one of the best games ever made the score it deserves.

[GDDR6_2014]

Omg 80/100 for a Sony exclusive? Site is trolling for hits or funded by MS, lets vote this site down!

[younglj01]

lol

[Deep-throat]

the reviewers on that site are a bunch of hipsters.
Go check their past reviews.

[jeeves86]

I like the game, I like the game a lot, but I can still acknowledge problems with it. The game was gorgeous, the score amazing and it was pretty challenging, but I found a few glitches, a few draw-distance issues (which admittedly weren't that far away), and a few nitpicks with the story. The blood hilariously squirts out of people like strawberry jam and then just pools around outside of them in a perfect circle.

My main complaint with the game is the character development. I just couldn't get into the characters all that well. I could understand the relationship between the two of them being built up, and things were looking great, but then the game jumps forward a few months, which takes a lot out of that crucial building stage. When we see Joel and Ellie again, the bond between them is stronger. Well how did it get that way? If the game hadn't have jumped forward a few months, I would have found it a lot easier to believe that 'hey, these guys are growing to trust one another.'

I also think I would have felt differently about character development if Ellie didn't fight, if she didn't use a gun or get all stabby til after The Hunt level. The fact that she'd killed someone earlier on was in my opinion underplayed. It'd happened a few times, but it didn't really strike me that she'd been affected at all. And for a game whose story is built up as much as this, the character development kind of kills it.

I think what happens here, as more and more people play the game, it just doesn't meet their expectations. The game has been over-hyped beyond belief by every review-outlet there is. So it's not surprising that the first people to play it give it a 10 and when the rest of us play it, it just doesn't live up to what our idea of a 10 is.

Nobody's wrong, it's just a matter of opinion. If you can't handle that I think it's an 8 and you think it's a 10, then tough luck.

[MelonSaurus]

It's laughable how people are actually calling this a troll review. An 80/100 is a great score and just because its not matching up with most other reviews automatically warrants calling it trash or "an attempt to get hits". Grow up and open your eyes. You might learn something.