Games Beaten 2017

[marurun]

I think we could safely argue that most AAA do have insanely talented staff, who can do wonders with a good engine. The issues those games have often come down to short development cycles (to meet yearly release schedules), mandates handed down by corporate, inadequate time for testing, etc... But those often huge teams are indeed loaded with incredibly talented developers who WANT to make the most awesome thing they can. And that's the real difference, external constraints. Indie and smaller devs often have more freedom from corporate mandates, and often plan for longer development cycles, even as they often lack the technical resources.

[ElkinFencer10]

I've played through TLoU, and while I enjoyed my time with it, it was more an experience than it was amazing from a gameplay standpoint. To be sure, presentation goes a long way, but I've played better elsewhere. I feel the same way about Shadow of the Colossus, although in that case the "experience" portion was so strong that it allowed me to pretty much ignore all its other flaws. And I suspect that's what is happening for others with TLoU.

That's definitely how I felt about The Last of Us; the sum was SO much more than the parts for me.

[Exhuminator]

it was more an experience than it was amazing from a gameplay standpoint / I suspect that's what is happening for others with TLoU.

The Last of Us; the sum was SO much more than the parts for me.

I get what you dudes are saying. But when I play video games, I see them from a gameplay perspective first and foremost. Everything else (pretty graphics / well rendered audio / emotional plot / etc.) is just icing on the gameplay cake. In that regard, it is difficult for me to ignore shallow gameplay or game design flaws, simply because the aesthetics or cinematic portrayals are above average. I do understand how realistic graphics and the feeling of cinematic immersion is important to others, it's just not as important to me as the base gameplay is. One could argue the point of Naughty Dog showboats is that they are cinematic movie-games, so deep gameplay isn't as central to the concept. And in that regard; fair enough.

[Segata]

it was more an experience than it was amazing from a gameplay standpoint / I suspect that's what is happening for others with TLoU.

The Last of Us; the sum was SO much more than the parts for me.

I get what you dudes are saying. But when I play video games, I see them from a gameplay perspective first and foremost. Everything else (pretty graphics / well rendered audio / emotional plot / etc.) is just icing on the gameplay cake. In that regard, it is difficult for me to ignore shallow gameplay or game design flaws, simply because the aesthetics or cinematic portrayals are above average. .

Exactly this. I often have felt that ND games are pretty but don't offer a lot when it came to gameplay to me. I played a few hours of Uncharted 3 because it came with my PS3 (like TLOU came with my PS4) Puzzles felt half-assed. The shooting was bland to me. Jumping on yellow thing to yellow thing felt so contrived. Has a slick presentation but past that wasn't a very fun game to play.

[Sarge]

To be fair to the Uncharted series, U3 is one of the weaker entries.

The criticism of Naughty Dog is fair. I don't think any of their stuff is spectacular from a gameplay perspective, but sometimes I love spectacle. And they usually provide that in spades. I think Rise of the Tomb Raider passed them in terms of quality, though. U4 is a solid time, though, and I plan on trying the semi-expansion eventually.

It would be tough for me to subsist on modern AAA titles alone, though. They're a great change of pace, but I have to get back to the retro at some point, and always do.

[Exhuminator]

The criticism of Naughty Dog is fair. I don't think any of their stuff is spectacular from a gameplay perspective, but sometimes I love spectacle. And they usually provide that in spades.

Exactly. I don't mean this in a snide way; but I can understand why graphics whores love Naughty Dog games. For me though, gameplay > graphics, always. Whenever I play a Naughty Dog game, it feels like I'm on a date with a really hot bimbo.

[marurun]

I think solid atmosphere and visuals can really enhance gameplay be helping to cement you in the game. They'll never make totally crap mechanics good, but they can uplift mediocre mechanics. It's all about being present in the moment.

[Sarge]

Well, to be clear, I don't think Naughty Dog games are bad from a gameplay perspective. I think they're decent, sometimes good, almost never great. But that's where presentation can help fill in the gaps. Sometimes I like to "play a movie", as it were.

[isiolia]

Exactly. I don't mean this in a snide way; but I can understand why graphics whores love Naughty Dog games. For me though, gameplay > graphics, always. Whenever I play a Naughty Dog game, it feels like I'm on a date with a really hot bimbo.

To me, it's mostly a matter of what the intended experience is. There's the whole spectrum there, from basically non-interactive shows to wander through, to hardcore score or pvp oriented games that are entirely based around mechanics. When it comes to Naughty Dog's newer entries, I see them as using gameplay primarily to support the story - you're right in the sense that they're interactive movies, just, with a fair bit of player involvement versus other iterations. That comes through with some of the dev trick I've seen posted, such as platform breaking animations being variable so that ever player can feel like they just barely made it. The goal seems more about crafting an experience than a challenge, such as it is.

Personally, I find it interesting to see, from an interactive storytelling standpoint, and it's a lot more compelling than simply walking from point a to b and triggering voice-over. It's also not exclusive, since for all the praise stuff like Spec Ops: The Line gets, the actual game underneath is pretty average. Same, I have heard, about Hellblade, though I haven't played it (yet) to see (bought on sale though, so, soon probably). Either are likely more fun to play than a Quantic Dream extended quicktime event.

[Exhuminator]

It's also not exclusive, since for all the praise stuff like Spec Ops: The Line gets, the actual game underneath is pretty average.

Speaking as someone who has beaten Spec Ops: The Line, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, and am halfway through TLoU; I would say Spec Ops: The Line trumps those Naughty Dog games in both gameplay and story telling. Spec Ops: The Line's cover shooting engine is considerably more advanced than Naughty Dog's stuff, and Spec Ops: The Line's writing is deeper, for this player carrying greater emotional impact. Spec Ops: The Line was also legitimately challenging (on normal difficulty), whereas the Naughty Dog stuff I've played has been brain dead easy (on normal difficulty). That said, the Naughty Dog stuff is more impressively graphically, and Uncharted/TLoU's plots definitely more acceptable for mainstream consumption, version Spec Ops: The Line's gut-wrenching tale.