The gameplay and graphics are really good, but the controls feel like they were done by a 12 year old, or a PC gamer,
L2 to run? what?
Not even going to bother getting into multiplayer just because of how frustrating and backwards the controls are.
In this day and age of gaming it's inexcusable to not have custom control mapping. That should have been relegated to the past years ago.
Sadly we have companies trying to use it as a strategy to make their game "feel" more difficult, when all they have done is made it "feel" difficult to play at all. What's the point?
It's just sad that this game is held back from being great by something so simple.
Ppl will of course argue "oh it makes the game more challenging" because of course "how dare I insult their new favorite game".
The truth of the matter is simple. It's not that the actions you are doing would be any more or less hard. It's just that it would be easier to perform THE EXACT SAME ACTIONS in the way that made sense to the individual player.
It would not change the actual gameplay itself, or what you were having to do in any way.
The only purpose of having an antiquated non-customizable control scheme is to make the game more "challenging" (frustrating) to control.
If that is going to be packaged and sold as a "feature" then I'm not interested in supporting it.
If this (or any other) game can't stand up on it's own two feet and be challenging without it, then it's not really anything other than a gimmick, that detracts from the experience of what this game could and SHOULD be.
If the bad control scheme is all that a game has to stand on, or, is what "makes the game", then that says something pretty sad about the game.
Now, of course I understand that some ppl will see this as looking for a hand out, but really I'm not looking for anything in the gameplay side of the game to be different.
I'm not at all asking for an easier version of anything.
I'm definitely also not one to shy away from being challenged in my gaming experiences.
But, when I say that, I'm not interested in hours of frustration by being "challenged" by a bad control scheme.
C'mon ppl it's 2013, custom control schemes should be standard.
Let's stop pretending we can't, or shouldn't do it.
Let the games (and all of us) step up to where we should be in this day and age.
Stop making games that are held back by such ancient tenets of gaming.
And, stop making games that pretend we can't do better, by pretending that you can't make them any better.
(And lol to anyone who will try to argue that bad control schemes are a feature we need to embrace. Sorry, but no, just no).
Even notoriously hard-to-control games like Metal Gear or Resident Evil have changed and adapted over the years to move away from needlessly frustrating controls.
Why is it that a game like "The Last of Us"(that is made years later) is still further behind in this respect?
If this is all this game is bringing to the table, then forget it.
Great, it looks amazing.
But I and others will be putting it down after the single player and not picking it up again.
There are too many other games that look just as great coming out on the horizon to really even care if ONE GAME doesn't have lasting power because of it's antiquated control scheme policies.
It's way TOO EASY to find a replacement that is more enjoyable to play.
Doesn't really say "Game of the Year" to me if it's that easy to put down.
Especially over something as simple as the control scheme...smh
The Last of Us will always be held back from being something truly amazing because of this.
(And I haven't even talked about what's antiquated about the multiplayer side of the game yet either)
(But you probably don't want to get me started)
lol no, just no.
If all this game is relying on is a bad control scheme to be good - IT ISN'T THAT GOOD A GAME.
If i could PLAY THE SAME GAME with a better control scheme and dominate, then it's hiding behind a bad control scheme.
Is it hard to RUN in real life?
Does making it harder to control the "run" function in a video game make it better? or more realistic?
And you are a fool to argue otherwise.
Bad control schemse are all they are. BAD.
It means nothing to get better at using them only that you'll lay down and take it however Naughty dog gives it to you.
and you'll like it unquestioningly, and beg for more.
Way to go.
You can take it all you want, but your arguement and logic are flawed.
I don't quite think assuming everyone will insult you down and disregard your opinion on the controls just because we're all madly in love with the game. It's a game, of course it isn't perfect so anyone is allowed to say what they feel could have been done better. Acting arrogant before anyone has even replied is what gets people riled up.
I would argue that yes, it would be easier if the control scheme was easier and simpler actions would be easier. Yet I feel that is the point of the game, at least for the single-player portion of the game. Simple tasks are meant to be tasking, you're not meant to feel empowered at all. Why not apply it to the player agency itself?
It's like with Silent Hill 1, 2, 3 and even 4. They controls were intentionally awkward to make you feel like just some schmuck thrown into a dire situation. If it feels more difficulty then mission accomplished in my eyes, you're on the same level as Joel a guy who is in his late 40s/50s maybe even early 60s. It's meant to feel authentic.
L2 to run was an issue to people in Deus Ex too but I didn't have a problem with it then. The flashlight is mapped to the joysticks to give you the same impression as clicking in the actuall button on the flash light and L3 is your point of interested button. Which, sure, could have been swapped with L2 but honestly is that much different to holding X to run in Arkham City?
Nerfing player controls is a very common theme throughout Survival Games. Dead Space, Resident Evil, Silent Hill and even, as much I wish to forget it, Alone in the Dark. It's nothing new in this genre of games. Even Walking Dead does this.
The difficulty is not all about the controls, it's much deeper than that. It's the fact the AI is unrestricted by this conditions because, unlike Joel, they are trained. If it were a game resolving around them I'm sure that would effect how the controls were layed out. Gaming is a very hard medium to make the player agency feel the same as the protagonist. You're meant to feel the struggle as Joel runs for his life, panics and makes mistakes. It's what the whole genre is about, to me.
You'd be surprised how few console games actually have custom layouts, PC games actually tend to have those more than us. It's not that we can't have that but that for games like this, at least, it'd go against the overall game brief.
Games like Call of Duty, Devil May Cry and Dishonored are okay for custom layouts, for me, because those games are about empowerment, you're meant to be this unstoppable force. Last of Us is much more about everything, even your own body, being against you.
I'm in no way saying the control scheme is great but this is a core reason why it works for a lot of people. Giving a good control scheme in a Survival genre game just makes it totally easy no matter how good your A.I and difficulty in game is because of how highly lethal every weapon, every choice is. For you and your foes.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion and say these reasons aren't good enough, that's your call, but really all can offer you is why it was designed in such a way, at least from my experience with Survival games and the game itself.
Meh, then i stand by my original point. If It's all this game has to stand on thent it's not rally good in my eyes,
How much better would it be if we DID feel empowered and STILL were challeneged to to point of it feeling "Tasking" anywways?
I say that would feel more realistic, not less.
Like sure, stuff should be hard and feel reasonable to acoomplish the various actions in gameplay, but it's not like ppl contantly fumble around all the time in real life.
And having that "built in" instead of being player driven feels so artificial that it actually takes away from some of the potential for it to be really good.
I understand about silent hill too, but also those game were made YEARS ago.
WIth technology and games improving the way that they have been, How long will we have to wait for a game that is TRULY challenging and not just "engineered" to be "challenging".
I eagerly await the REAL gamechanging esperience in survival horror with a game like that.
Until then "The Last of Us" misses the mark.
Which is sad, because it's so close to being that, or what it could be.
And really, how bad would it be if we could customize the controls?
Would the game really be runied becaue of that?
If so, that's telling for me.
It shows where this game "didn't quite hit the mark".
Or where it could be better in the future.
Becuase, If the game would really be broken by that, then what needs to change in order to deliver that same kind of experience if we weren't being limited by bad controls?
How much more would they have to step up the enemy interacions etc?
And how much more realistic could it become if that was pursued?
That's all i'm really getting at.
Yep, and I'll be putting the game down because of them, so I guess that makes us both right? Right? No.
Some ppl will always like and defend whatever the game does regardless, with or without anything to support their claims, It doesn't make them right, or me any less right,
So thank you for commenting, but you really didn't prove or add anything to the discussion that we didn't already know.