• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Last Of Us Part 1 - Improvements Listed

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
It's a game, the freedom of game development
I myself like beautiful designs in my games but have to agree with this, devs should be free to design their characters however they want same way Japanese devs does.
 
Last edited:

Moses85

Member
I never played it, yes i really never touched anything last of us related and i can tell you this gets me very EXCITED!
how is that even possible season 1 GIF by Manifest
 

Akt

Banned
Motion capture, voice acting, writing, concept art, scripting, directing - these were all already done in the original edition. New combat mechanics, haptics, etc - these all came from part 2. So they are selling a product with a much lower production cost for full retail price.
So what?

If there are people who will pay, and there is a lot of them, why wouldn't they charge as much as they want?
 
I never played it, yes i really never touched anything last of us related and i can tell you this gets me very EXCITED!
Damn, if you get to play TLoU Part 1 and TLoU Part 2 back to back, oh boy, it doesn't get much better than that.

Motion capture, voice acting, writing, concept art, scripting, directing - these were all already done in the original edition. New combat mechanics, haptics, etc - these all came from part 2. So they are selling a product with a much lower production cost for full retail price.
If you already played it and you don't see the value in getting it day one there is an really easy solution for you. Don't buy it on release (or at all). Sony charged $70 for their games on release, it is what is it, they drop in price relatively fast, you just pay a big premium to play closer to release.

If game price was based on production value you would have to pay a lot more than $70 for game like TLoU and indie game would not be able to charge more than a few bucks. Game price is based on how much people are willing to pay and how much heat the publisher is willing to take for charging as much as they can.
 
Last edited:

Majormaxxx

Member
If game price was based on production value you would have to pay a lot more than $70 for game like TLoU
It is partially based on production value - 100k+ per year per person on the team. Games have budgets and sales goals.

and indie game would not be able to charge more than a few bucks. Game price is based on how much people are willing to pay and how much heat the publisher is willing to take for charging as much as they can.
Yes, and people shouldn't be wiling to pay full price for this. And Sony rightly should get heat. In fact, my post was exactly that. Why are you defending them so ardently?

My perception is that this doesn't merit full price. Publishers will ask for what they have perceived they can get away with. I say they are pushing too far with this particular title. Why is miles morales, half price and this is full price?
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
GT7 is fantastic now. They listened to the community and fixed it up right quick (within the same week or so).

Earned over 140million credits without spending a single MTX dime.

I second this.

After reading the GT7 MTX thread and being (rightly) assured that the game isn’t predatory, I bought it, and have enjoyed every moment since. Not a hint of trying to sell me credits, and the grind is no harder than previous GT games.
 
It is partially based on production value - 100k+ per year per person on the team. Games have budgets and sales goals.


Yes, and people shouldn't be wiling to pay full price for this. And Sony rightly should get heat. In fact, my post was exactly that. Why are you defending them so ardently?

My perception is that this doesn't merit full price. Publishers will ask for what they have perceived they can get away with. I say they are pushing too far with this particular title. Why is miles morales, half price and this is full price?
Because they think it's going to sell well at $70. If it doesn't the price will drop pretty fast. I just don't see a reason to be upset when it's a game you already played.
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
So what?

If there are people who will pay, and there is a lot of them, why wouldn't they charge as much as they want?
They can charge whatever they want for sure. But many of us paid full price to play this the first time around and a group of us aren't going to pay 70 for something we already paid 60 for in 2013. I want to play the remastered version but I'll wait until it's on sale or on PS+. I think that's fair.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
They can charge whatever they want for sure. But many of us paid full price to play this the first time around and a group of us aren't going to pay 70 for something we already paid 60 for in 2013. I want to play the remastered version but I'll wait until it's on sale or on PS+. I think that's fair.
That’s what I’m going to do, wait. My backlog is still being chipped away, so by the time I want to get to it, they’ll probably have a double pack with a native PS5 TLoU2 as well and/or discounted price.
 

Kabelly

Member
Is this confirmed?

An argument for a “better use of resources” falls flat when you view it from a cost/benefit ratio perspective. The bulk of the labor is done.

Take that and plop it on top of a superior engine that affords parity to combat, accessibility, various gameplay modes and modifiers etc, to one of the most beloved gaming narratives in existence, and I honestly cannot think of a better utilization of resources that would give such RoI for the initial investment. We’re talking Paranormal Activity returns. Okay maybe not that much, but a lot.

This, financially, is a very smart move by Sony, and considering the work is mostly done and the popularity of the property at hand, to not do it is what would be considered a poor use of resources.
Let's hope they don't retread from TLOU2 since it has it. But since it's coming to PC you can just use steam or other controller mappers to get gyro still if it's not in the native settings.
 

IbizaPocholo

NeoGAFs Kent Brockman

After a long history of rumors and speculation, Naughty Dog finally pulled the veil on a shiny new remake of its 2013 masterpiece, The Last of Us - now rightfully dubbed The Last of Us Part 1. Naughty Dog are undisputed masters of Sony hardware, and the developer has continually provided the best visual fidelity within the constraints of the hardware time and time again. The Last of Us was easily one of the - if not the best looking game - at its time of release, and suffice to say - the game still looks great even by modern standards.

Scheduled to release sometime during September 2022, The Last of Us Part 1 seems to be a significant upgrade over the original in terms of graphical details and other quality-of-life features at first glance. That said, some fans have also rightfully questioned the very existence of this remake as well since the game is still perfectly playable (if a bit aged) thanks to the PS4 remaster that was released in 2014. Either way, here's a graphics comparison between the two versions of The Last of Us.

Please note that this is a preliminary graphics comparison, since we don't have much to go off of when it comes to The Last of Us Part 1's footage. With that out of the way, let's begin.
 

Crayon

Member
Easy money.

I've never played tlou and I think I might just play the original when I get around to it. They give that one away and I think I'd rather see it as it was for nerd reasons.
 
Motion capture, voice acting, writing, concept art, scripting, directing - these were all already done in the original edition. New combat mechanics, haptics, etc - these all came from part 2. So they are selling a product with a much lower production cost for full retail price.
By your own logic Sony games should cost $200 because if you base the value of the product on the money spent to create it Sony games have some of the highest production values out there. Should indie games cost 99 cents at most because they are mostly low budget productions?

Sony wants to sell the game at full price when it releases on PC, they want to introduce new people to the game with a current gen presentation, maybe your are just not the target audience.

If you think it's worth $40 just wait a few months. Makes a lot more sense than been surprised by an obvious business decision. If you are a person that already played the original and still would pay $40 to play this day one, it just shows how valuable their product is.
 
Last edited:
They should either put it on PS+ day one or long, long after the release. Imagine how pissed people who spend 80 EUR would be if the game would be included a month later.
Well, haven't you heard? The theory is putting games on services like PS+ don't devalue them. Therefore, Sony want to have their cake and eat it too. They'll charge as much as they can on release and will put the games on PS+ once it has dropped in value significantly.

It's pretty obvious what anyone that wants to save money needs to do in the current situation.
 
Last edited:
I mean, look at TLoU Remastered, and then look at Part 1, which is a full-blown remake.

The difference is night and day, chalk and cheese, black and white, etc.
I agree but I'd have spent a little more time to why this warrants a full price release (though I feel current gen prices are too high regardless). In a lot of ways this remake is somewhat more of a reimagining. Obviously the story is the same but what we have is completely new assets, improvements to animations, improved controls and movement pulled from TLOU2.

The AI has been overhauled to include everything from TLOU2, and to accommodate all the new movement and AI they've expanded the environments as well.
 

Star-Lord

Gold Member
I agree but I'd have spent a little more time to why this warrants a full price release (though I feel current gen prices are too high regardless). In a lot of ways this remake is somewhat more of a reimagining. Obviously the story is the same but what we have is completely new assets, improvements to animations, improved controls and movement pulled from TLOU2.

The AI has been overhauled to include everything from TLOU2, and to accommodate all the new movement and AI they've expanded the environments as well.
They've confirmed they're adding more story-based elements too, so you're essentially getting a new directors cut of the original.
 
They've confirmed they're adding more story-based elements too, so you're essentially getting a new directors cut of the original.
That's side quests or just more story filler? I'm getting a PS5 for this, I've completed the game twice but I'll go round again for this version.
 

EDMIX

Member
That's side quests or just more story filler? I'm getting a PS5 for this, I've completed the game twice but I'll go round again for this version.

Same. Such an amazing story, I like the first game a lot but my only issue was the AI and bad controls, this makes this remake a day 1 easily using The Last Of Us 2's AI and controls.


Anyone know if prone is confirmed in terms of movement? I don't see why it wouldn't simply that i don't know 100% of all the details they've put out as of late.
 

Javthusiast

Banned
God I want to play it so bad, especially because of the redesigned combat. Part 2s combat, weapons, movement is so freaking good.

Problem is I have no ps5.
 

Arachnid

Member
It's a game, the freedom of game development is you can make a character look however you want

There is zero reason for game development to be funnelled into just good looking people. Hollywood is like that because it's full of image obsessed narcissists and they are selecting actors based on a small pool of good looking people who got through based on looks and not talent.
Not true. Hollywood is like that because they know it sells. People just like attractive people. Attractive people are perceived as smarter, more positive, stronger, and/or all around better at first impression. It's a privilege that isn't lost on most of the world.
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
So what?

If there are people who will pay, and there is a lot of them, why wouldn't they charge as much as they want?

This is an absolutely terrible outlook to have as a consumer. It's pretty giving carte blanche to businesses to take you for all you're worth. Yes, there are people who will defend these practices and yes there's surely a fair amount of work getting TLOU to perform and look as good as/better than TLOU2, but the fact of the matter should still stand: its a current gen face lift for a game that's architecture, art direction, setting, loop, encounters, script, voice recording and story are already finished. And they're charging full price for it.

This, in tandem with what they did for the Uncharted 4/Lost Legacy face-lift should *really* be making people more wary of Naughty Dog's current-gen business practices than they are. One is weird, two is a trend. This disinterested forgiveness thing is what made EA and Ubisoft into the cookie cutter micro transaction soulless machines that they are. I'd hate for Naughty Dog to become Sony's conveyor belt.
 

ZehDon

Member
I wonder if this will come to ps extra or premium day1?

Or maybe the first month?
Why would Sony possibly do that? They're pushing the AUD$125.00 price tag hard this generation. They'll wait until it's sold as many copies as it absolutely can before they use it to pad out their PS+ lists.
 

Yoboman

Member
Not true. Hollywood is like that because they know it sells. People just like attractive people. Attractive people are perceived as smarter, more positive, stronger, and/or all around better at first impression. It's a privilege that isn't lost on most of the world.
Which is irrelevant to alot of casting like villains still looking like models. Or biopics where the actors look a hundred times more beautiful than their real life counterparts
 
So what?

If there are people who will pay, and there is a lot of them, why wouldn't they charge as much as they want?
There are people who would've payed $300 just for Last of Us 2 before it came out, does that mean it would be good if Sony started charging say ...$100 for just the base game? I bet there are a lot of people who would've paid that. Just because the the market could support overpriced games doesn't mean it's a good thing. Are you a gamer or a Sony shareholder? There is a certain expectation of value in gaming over the years. Unless you're so wealthy or buy so few games a year, I don't see why anyone would support game companies raising the prices on games to the degree we've already been seeing over the last several years. I'm not just talking about the $10 arbitrary increase we've seen the industry adopt for next gen games but also how companies have successfully already raised the prices through clever dlc/deluxe/ultimate editions.

Last of Us 1 Remake is $70 vs $40 for AAA remake we've seen from other games like Shadow of Collossus, Tony Hawk, Spyro and Crash. I don't understand this mindset of thinking from the corporations pov instead of the consumers. I buy a lot of games though which is maybe why it bothers me so much. The way I see it is that they're just money grabbing us, the people who've made them richer than at any other point in history. They've crushed the threat of piracy through DRM, they've gotten away with lootboxes for the longest time using high priced lawyers and now have been "forced" to be slightly less predatory. They will still try pushing NFT's if they can get away with it.
 

EDMIX

Member
Not true. Hollywood is like that because they know it sells. People just like attractive people. Attractive people are perceived as smarter, more positive, stronger, and/or all around better at first impression. It's a privilege that isn't lost on most of the world.

Sure, but that isn't all casting directors though. Some directors will even tell the casting director that they don't want famous faces as they feel the recognizability will take away from the story or a audience will typecast the role so to speak, like assume who is a good guy, bad guy etc.

So I don't disagree that of course "hollywood" likes to cast like that often, that doesn't mean all directors, studios, casting directors etc all actually seek that or look for that or something. If anything, that happening there, doesn't mean it should be in gaming btw.

I want the character to look like what ever the artist had in mind, not a company looking to just bank by having a bunch of instagram models in the game to sell, sell, sell lol

So I agree with you that such a thing happens, but its not an excuse to keep that practice alive in another medium trying to justify it here or something. Yoboman Yoboman is correct on this one, its developers discretion as it should always been. I get it happens in hollywood a lot, but lots of shit happens there that I don't think we should be supporting, backing or continuing in gaming. As an artist myself, when I make a character in a story in terms of art, I'm focused on how that person looks like in my mind, not based on marketing to tictok or instagram or making them look like fashion models.

I want the reader to believe this is a real world thing happening, not a fucking picture of a CW show lol For me personally, that shit in hollywood takes me out of it and I prefer method acting and casting to fit a role and idea vs "pretty" for the sake of it to sell tickets or some shit.



So I get it, someone that looks like this would be considered ugly by many and many would argue some "agenda" if Naughty Dog made someone look like this as a character, but the film Monster's job was to sell you on this persons life and the role of the character, not to fucking selling you make up, porn, fashion shit etc



Same actor, different roles, different goals.

Have a good one.
 
Top Bottom