The Last of Us just cleared house at the DICE Awards, taking home 10 awards.
Left Behind drops next week.
The Last of Us just cleared house at the DICE Awards, taking home 10 awards.
Left Behind drops next week.
eh I'm not going to do Left behind
Left Behind was awesome. My playtime went a little over 3 hours but it was quality. The DLC jumps back and forth between playful sections with Riley and Ellie without combat and intense combat sections as Ellie out getting medical supplies for Joel. The result was an emotional rollercoaster, which is what the main game did very well. They did some really unique things too. My favorite bits being a couple sections in which there's hunters looking for you but there's also infected slumbering which with a handy-dandy bottle throw will result in them fighting eachother leaving the much reduced numbers for you to deal with. Sometimes the hunters would win, sometimes the infected. Another standout moment I won't spoil, but it takes place in an arcade.
Even for $15, I recommend it.
If the scene in question is the one I'm thinking of, I just saw it on Youtube. Considering the game's poster and release date…yeah, I saw it coming. So did almost everyone else, for that matter.
! Also…surprise, surprise! People are coming out of the woodwork to say that Naughty Dog is pandering to gay rights groups and feminists by putting that in there. That their thought process must have been "Everyone is being all progressive and gay-friendly with their gays these days. Guess we better be, too!"
But the main game already had two gay characters in it? Don't see why that would be any sort of deal.
Probably because she wasn't introduced as a lesbian in the main game…? I'm just guessing here, really.
! And the fact that Left Behind was released the exact same day Ellen Page came out (also quite obvious, if you ask me)…wow. It's almost conspiracy theory levels of coincidence.
That scene doesn't make Ellie gay tho. Also the scene I meant was the Angel Knives game.
You think that matters to your average Youtube bottom feeder? The video I watched had almost as many dislikes as likes, which I figured was because the uploader felt the need to put his obnoxious commentary over it, but no. Everyone was complaining about how ND did it because "Being gay is super cool now, so we should be too!1!"
Also, I didn't know. I haven't played it yet. :P This topic was gonna get brought up at some point, anyway.
I… actually didn't think it'd be brought up and I'm stunned by the noise it's causing.
Two young teenage girlfriends kissed. It did surprise me when it happened, but then quickly came to understanding. I'm guessing most of these basement dweller homophobes don't realize this is actually a fairly common thing with young girls.
This is why we can't have nice things.
To be quite honest…
! …I pegged Ellie's relationship to Riley to be more than friendly from the get go. It just seemed like more to me, and this DLC further cements that feeling. All the people getting bent out of shape over it or rationalizing it away need to just give up the ghost. It is what it is! Know what? Gay people exist. Know what else? Most of them know well before they're Ellie's age. Deal with it. Enjoy this pretty damn good bit of fiction, damn it.
All in all, I really enjoyed "Left Behind." As far as gameplay goes, I especially liked…
! …pitting the infected and enemy humans against each other. Ho. Ly. Fuck. It was something I had hoped for in the main game, and it totally delivered!
I… actually didn't think it'd be brought up and I'm stunned by the noise it's causing.
Two young teenage girlfriends kissed. It did surprise me when it happened, but then quickly came to understanding. I'm guessing most of these basement dweller homophobes don't realize this is actually a fairly common thing with young girls.
This is why we can't have nice things.
If the statistics are true, it's apparently quite prevalent among young men as well. It was even happening a lot back in the "good ol' days" when homophobia was the (supposed) universal norm. They just don't admit to it, or let their friends film it and upload it to the internet for all to see.
@Corson:
To be quite honest…
! …I pegged Ellie's relationship to Riley to be more than friendly from the get go. It just seemed like more to me, and this DLC further cements that feeling. All the people getting bent out of shape over it or rationalizing it away need to just give up the ghost. It is what it is! Know what? Gay people exist. Know what else? Most of them know well before they're Ellie's age. Deal with it. Enjoy this pretty damn good bit of fiction, damn it.
All in all, I really enjoyed "Left Behind." As far as gameplay goes, I especially liked…
! …pitting the infected and enemy humans against each other. Ho. Ly. Fuck. It was something I had hoped for in the main game, and it totally delivered!
That's not what I'm saying tho. I'm merely saying you cannot determine her sexual orientation from that scene, it's not black and white. That's why TLOUs writing is top notch. It's natural.
That's not what I'm saying tho. I'm merely saying you cannot determine her sexual orientation from that scene, it's not black and white. That's why TLOUs writing is top notch. It's natural.
I know! That wasn't so much a reply to you as it was a general rant.
Also, I definitely agree with your assessment of the writing in the game. Hell, I'm almost of the mind that I don't care about anything Naughty Dog does if Neil Druckmann and Bruce Straley aren't at the helm.
@Corson:
I know! That wasn't so much a reply to you as it was a general rant.
Also, I definitely agree with your assessment of the writing in the game. Hell, I'm almost of the mind that I don't care about anything Naughty Dog does if Neil Druckmann and Bruce Straley aren't at the helm.
If Uncharted 3 is any indication, neither am I. It sucks that they're not involved in Uncharted 4 either (I think).
Also I made this, and I'm totally not sorry.
My official response to that is a sort of chortling sound.
[http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/27/the-last-of-us-is-coming-to-playstation-4
L](http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/27/the-last-of-us-is-coming-to-playstation-4)ast of Us has been confirmed for PS4 version of the game will come with Left behind
The only reason I care about this is that it gives credence to an older rumor that they're going to have a PS4 Uncharted Trilogy.
! I just read some stuff about left behind I have to say Ellen Page outing herself and the twist in here, that's some hilarious coincidence
So are they going to just straight port it to the PS4 or are they actually going to improve the graphics/other stuff in the game? I don't know if they would have a higher quality internal version or not as I don't know if they ever had plans when they were making the game to make a next gen version later on.
So are they going to just straight port it to the PS4 or are they actually going to improve the graphics/other stuff in the game? I don't know if they would have a higher quality internal version or not as I don't know if they ever had plans when they were making the game to make a next gen version later on.
The exec who leaked it in the interview said it'll have "enhanced graphics."
I seem to remember someone at Naughty Dog saying that the engine with which they built The Last of Us was made fairly 'future proof' and could be scaled. What I can't remember is where I heard or read it… :/
Hopefully the ps4 version runs at 60 fps even if it doesn't I'm getting it regardless the last of us is one my favorite video games.
The Last of Us: Remastered -PS4- $59.99 (SEN Store mistake/leak)
Looks like they're repeating the Tomb Raider kerfuffle, then. Better be 1080p/60fps at that price.
I would pay full price even if not… Sold my PS3 before the DLC was released...
Looks like they're repeating the Tomb Raider kerfuffle, then. Better be 1080p/60fps at that price.
http://gematsu.com/2014/04/last-us-remastered-confirmed-ps4
1080p but no mention of 60 fps. What I'm wondering is most of the game's cutscenes are prerendered, right? Like the Uncharted games. Are they going to rerender the cutscenes at 1080p with higher settings or are they going to actually make them real time? Prerendered wouldn't work with 60 fps anyway, so if it does turn out to be "aiming" for 60 fps they really couldn't use prerendered cutscenes.
I think it's kind of scummy doing this so much. Taking recent games and selling people the "definitive version" for another $60. GTAV is expected to do the same thing but nothing definitive on that. I mean, the game definitely deserves better than what it was like on the PS3 but it's still shitty essentially selling people the same game twice.
Well, the people don't HAVE to buy the game again. I know there are many who will do it, of whom many are fans who want to play one of their favourite games with the best possible graphics and stuff. But it's still their own decision to pay for a slightly updated product. The fact that they sell it at full price again is the real problem that i have with it, i agree with that. And that's something i can not support.
I personally am glad that they release some old games for the new consoles again because i never played some of these. I'll buy Tomb Raider and The Last of us for the PS4 as soon as i get them for about 30-40 € and i'll be really happy if they release GTA V too. I was too busy with my 3DS the last year to pay attention to console games. :)
Druckmann tweeted that they're targeting 60FPS. It's a start.
Well I hope that they're not going to try and prerender cutscenes at 1080p 60 fps for whatever reason they would want to. Seeing as this is an exclusive game it should hold at 60 fps better than say Tomb Raider if that's what they're targeting. Interested in how it turns out. It's entirely possible it was developed for next gen (or at least a higher quality version was made first) in the first place so it could actually look next gen instead of just an upressed last gen game.
Bumping this up as the PS4 version comes out later this month and noticed the info in this thread is a little outdated.
It has been confirmed that the entire game (SP and MP) runs at 1080p 60fps, no longer any of this "targeting" crap. People are still throwing a fit tho that we're within weeks of release and ND still hasn't released some solid gameplay videos for comparison. Only we got was the E3 trailer which was 98% pre-rendered cutscenes with only a couple split second scenes of realtime gameplay.
Can't wait for all the people who complain about how "weird" the game looks at 60 fps. I've seen posts on forums saying how Ground Zeroes hurt their eyes or something because of that.
Lol, how the hell can 60fps hurt, I love how smooth it plays in 60 frames.
Because when you're first being exposed to the new medium, be it HD or a higher frame count, it doesn't look like what you're used to, and there's something jarring and unreal about it. WheN I first started seeing HD tvs I thought they looked awful and I couldn't quite place why, and when I eventually got one (so that I could read the text on my PS3 games) I was initially really thrown off by the difference between standard and HD channels.
Then you get used to it.
People were bitching about The Hobbit looking weird at 48 fps too, but they'll be glad it's got the higher frames in 20 years. and will in fact probably be upset it wasn't shot at 60.
There's also the argument that "24 frames looks like film and higher counts look cheap home video" which is just… bizarre logic.
There's also the argument that "24 frames looks like film and higher counts look cheap home video" which is just… bizarre logic.
It's not really logic, so much as association with what's out there. A lot of home recording equipment (and some TV recording equipment even) actually does 30 or 60 FPS, as opposed to the overwhelming film standard of 24. So when they see stuff that looks "too good" in terms of clarity and smoothness, because of the higher frame rate and lack of judder from pulldown (or interpolation for 60i signals), they associate it with the stuff they've seen that does the same thing, namely "cheap home video." Also soap operas. They sometimes call it the soap opera effect.
I know. It's mental trained association. And its silly. That'll vanish quick enough once higher rates become more standard.
Yeah it's really silly. And at any rate I've never seen anyone complain about it for games. That's just ridiculous.
I know. It's mental trained association. And its silly. That'll vanish quick enough once higher rates become more standard.
It's kind of that on part of the home viewers, but the big resistance to it in the industry comes from the fact that it is a step away from real film making and a move towards digital cinema, which is something that a lot of people (especially Tarantino* and Nolan, two of the biggest giants working today) are against, and those for it (Cameron and Jackson) haven't really released anything that makes people go: yeah, this is how it needs to be.
I myself am old school; I loathe the idea of using anything other than actual to film to make movies, so I am in the 24fps camp, but I do realize that by the time I die, film will most likely be an ancient relic of the past, with even digital film making having been supplanted.
At the very end of the day though, it's going to come down to the fact that 24fps is a century old tradition–it is what film has essentially been since its inception, and the "look" of Hollywood is so ingrained in society and pop culture that even if every filmmaker immediately moved away from it, it would take quite a while to adapt, more so than HD or Blu-Ray.
I don't think 60 fps is going to become standard again for video games on consoles though. There are a few games here and there that do it but most devs are more focused on making their games look better/have snazzy effects than making them run well. I do hope though that 48 fps or more becomes standard for film but I'm not holding my breath.
I don't think 60 fps is going to become standard again for video games on consoles though. There are a few games here and there that do it but most devs are more focused on making their games look better/have snazzy effects than making them run well.
It will. Whether it happens this gen is MAYBE debatable – not having a PS4 yet I'm paying less attention right now, but almost everything I see announced runs at 60fps with a few notable "defiant" examples by devs proudly touting the fact that they couldn't code the game well enough to run properly at 60. I also think a lot of Wii U games are running at 60. Either way if it doesn't happen this gen it will the next.
@Nex:
Eww color TV! It's ruining tradition. Good filmmakers know that artistry and cinematography are ruined by color photography instead of these awesome things we can do with monochrome. Maybe when I die color television will be the standard, but it's going to take a really long time for audiences to accept it.
Yeah, WiiU games mostly run at 60 fps I suppose. Most games running at 60 fps on either the PS4 or Xbone though do it unstably and would be better called 45-50 fps than 60 fps. Ground Zeroes is really the only game that reliably runs at 60 fps on either console besides that shmup on the PS4, which is a shmup so framerate isn't too much of a problem for it. Even Sony's flagship titles like Killzone (multiplayer runs at about 45 fps) and Infamous run at 30 fps. Knack runs at 20-45 fps. The Order is running at more or less 30 fps. Bloodborn's footage they showed at E3 was having problems even getting to 30 fps. Most of the games running at 60 fps are last gen games essentially.
60FPS for video games makes sense because the smoother the experience, the better you can react to things happening around you., so that makes sense to me.
On Movies and stuff… not so much. I'm sure it looks better if the thing in question was actually FILMED at a higher frame rate (Never saw the Hobbit that way tho lol... might see the last one that way as that'll be my last chance to) but my only experience with higher Framerate movies and the like right now is that "Automatically add frames to artificially force a higher framerate" and it looks........... bad. It feels like everything is fast forwarding and going normal speed at the same time somehow and it just looks really really off.
There's actually a trailer for a movie on Youtube that's 48 fps in some places. You should be able to tell when it goes to 48 fps.
Make sure you're on Chrome and watch it at 1080p and it should run at the high framerate.
Interpolation is hit or miss because it's essentially making up frames to put in between other frames, but it does give a general idea of what higher framerates in film look like. Another thing though is that you're not modifying how the film was shot with interpolation, and the motion blur that was used for 24 fps can look pretty bad at higher framerates. I wouldn't judge 48 fps off of the Hobbit because the filmmaking hasn't quite caught up to the technology and the CGI in the movie (which is a good chunk of the movie) is really obvious with the higher framerate.
Yeah, I can't watch 1080p 60fps in-browser on my laptop, I gotta bump it down to 720p. I can watch full 1080p 60fps on my computer if it's downloaded and played in a video player just fine tho. I'm using Chrome with HTML5, but it just doesn't happen. Most affordable capture cards on the market right now (consoles at least) only do 60fps at 720p tho so I guess I'll be good for the most part.
I got a new capture card and I can actually stream to Twitch in 720p 60fps in great quality so I'm happy. I'll be streaming TLOU Remastered on release day.
…
Your fix of my quote is not even close to accurate. If my quote is in LA, you're on the moon.
Color was possible from the start. Celluloid always had that potential, but the problem was that for the first couple decades of film, it was a very time consuming process that largely had to be done by hand or stencils. The advent of technicolor changed the game, but it was still a long process, as technicolor was far from perfect.
No one was resistant to it, not like they were with "talkies" (though, those resistant then were the silent film actors who historically did not have anything that could be considered a good speaking voice.)
Film went from black and white to color, but you know what didn't change in that process? Frame rate. Yes it changed when we transitioned from silent films (Which average around 16 fps if I recall correctly) to talkies, but that was because 24fps was necessary for the synchronization of sound, and as things stabilized, it proved itself to be the best technical and economical frame rate for film.
Honestly, I understand that most people disagree with me, and I am welcome to arguments on it, as it a discussion I have very often at my job, but at least do a little bit of research or something.
@Nex:
but that was because 24fps was necessary for the synchronization of sound, and as things stabilized, it proved itself to be the best technical and economical frame rate for film
Economical? Yes. Technical? No. 24 fps was chosen because it allowed for the illusion of motion while also not breaking the bank on film costs. Edison at the time was experimenting with film as well and he came up with 46 fps I think as a good framerate for its visuals as anything lower in his words would "strain the eyes". 24 fps is a relic from when film was expensive and had to be used to make movies. I don't know what the cost of film is these days but it should be lower, and regardless film isn't necessary anymore.
Economical? Yes. Technical? No. 24 fps was chosen because it allowed for the illusion of motion while also not breaking the bank on film costs. Edison at the time was experimenting with film as well and he came up with 46 fps I think as a good framerate for its visuals as anything lower in his words would "strain the eyes". 24 fps is a relic from when film was expensive and had to be used to make movies. I don't know what the cost of film is these days but it should be lower, and regardless film isn't necessary anymore.
You're kind of correct. 24 fps never had to be used. It just so happened it was the perfect frame rate when looking at it from an economic and technical standpoint.
Once audio was actually printed the celluloid along with the image frame rate became linked with the audio technology available at the time. Economically, they would have gone to a lower frame rate as possible, so as to not waste anymore film, but from a technical standpoint, 24 fps was the lowest you could go and still produce quality sound. It was a decision based on the coupling of both qualifiers, so you can't really looking at them individually, because then 24 is far from ideal. 16 would have been the most economical. And, well, looking at film on its own, theoretically, the highest possible frame rate the better.
The Edison theory of 46 fps is largely unsubstantial. The biggest problem with it being that he determined that while researching for his Kinetoscope, which was intended to be used with one person whose eyes would be inches from the image. On a screen it would be different, especially with projector technology. And, damningly enough, The Great Train Robbery, (released in 1903, 15 years after the oldest known movie) which is considered to be the first narrative film–a movie Edison had a hand in creating and distributing, ran at 18 fps. In fact, every film Edison Studios released ran at 24 fps or less. (Generally less.)
Yes, Edison himself never made any films, but he also didn't really do much besides throw out a number. So it's hard to take it with anything more than a grain of salt at this point.
@Nex:
Your fix of my quote is not even close to accurate. If my quote is in LA, you're on the moon.
Color was possible from the start. Celluloid always had that potential, but the problem was that for the first couple decades of film, it was a very time consuming process that largely had to be done by hand or stencils. The advent of technicolor changed the game, but it was still a long process, as technicolor was far from perfect.
No one was resistant to it, not like they were with "talkies" (though, those resistant then were the silent film actors who historically did not have anything that could be considered a good speaking voice.)
Film went from black and white to color, but you know what didn't change in that process? Frame rate. Yes it changed when we transitioned from silent films (Which average around 16 fps if I recall correctly) to talkies, but that was because 24fps was necessary for the synchronization of sound, and as things stabilized, it proved itself to be the best technical and economical frame rate for film.
Honestly, I understand that most people disagree with me, and I am welcome to arguments on it, as it a discussion I have very often at my job, but at least do a little bit of research or something.
My god you missed the point of my post. Anyway this is a video game topic; I'm not going to keep this going.
And the thing with games is, they have inputs. Inputs that need incredibly accurate timing, often. And time doesn't stop in a game in between frames. The framerate bump for The Last of Us is really significant.
My god you missed the point of my post. Anyway this is a video game topic; I'm not going to keep this going.
And the thing with games is, they have inputs. Inputs that need incredibly accurate timing, often. And time doesn't stop in a game in between frames. The framerate bump for The Last of Us is really significant.
The point of your post was to compare the "argument" against moving from 24 fps to something better, as similar to a non-existent argument about moving from monochrome to color. Not that much to miss.
A new Remastered trailer was shown at Comic-Con and Sam Raimi joined the panel to discuss the film adaptation. Maisie Williams (Arya from Game of Thrones) is playing Ellie. No Joel yet. They joked about Bruce Campbell playing David.