The Last of Us Sweeps the 17th Annual DICE Awards

The Last of Us Sweeps the 17th Annual DICE Awards

The Last of Us did at least fail to take home the Best Sports Game Award.

Read Full Article

Considering Sony found a way to get The Last of Us running on a Vita, it should have been nominated for Handheld Game Of The Year too.

Well-deserved indeed! They have made a couple of mis steps with TLoU though. The biggest might just be the fact that the Pal versions multiplayer is censored.
Nontheless, this game was quite an amazing experience.

Well deserve! Naughty Dog has set the bar pretty high for themselves ... now what can they do to surpass that bar?

Great game Last of Us and Bioshock got a couple as well so i'm happy, sad no Tomb Raider mentions as otherwise they were my perfect three games of 2013 :)

I must say that I was surprised on several fronts by The Last of Us. It definitely deserved recognition and I'm happy that it's so clearly enjoyed.

Wow, a vapid award show where the nominations make no sense, the winners don't deserve it, and indies are ignored. Congratulations, Games Industry. You're one step closer to your goal of Becoming the Movie Industry.

Right, so...I agree with most of the noms and wins for The Last of Us. However...

Why in the hell did it take home "Outstanding Innovation in Gaming"?

It was a fantastic game, to be sure, but just what in the fuck did it innovate?!

And actually, looking through the list again, there are a number of picks I'm confused about. (not in regards to TLoU) Seems many of them are based solely on sales figures and less on the actual quality of the content within.

But it didnt have as many Emoshawns as Beyond Two Souls. How is this possible??

While I agree that TLOU probably didn't deserve the innovation award (that should've gone to Brothers, Papers Please, or The Stanley Parable in my opinion,) I think people really gloss over the guts it took to put that gameplay in such a big-budget action game. They really put an effort in to make it fit with the tone of the story. It was brutal without being silly, resources were scarce (usually reserved for niche horror games,) there was a huge emphasis on exploration and character interaction in addition to combat, and they finally ditched that stupid health regen that I personally got sick of around 2008. Plus it was one of the few modern stealth-focused games that actually punished you for being detected. It seems like every other "stealth" game these days just lets you blast everyone away, and you only suffer a minor loss of ammo. You can blast away in TLOU but you will pay for it dearly in ammo and crafting tools. I think the dedication to storytelling and atmosphere embedded within the action gameplay itself is somewhat of an innovation to say the least.

Sorry for the mini-rant. I've just seen so many people bash TLOU for "generic" gameplay and then give a lame corridor shooter like Bioshock: Infinite a pass for some reason. I really enjoyed almost everything in The Last of Us... except for the Clicker encounters. Those were annoying

Vigormortis:
Right, so...I agree with most of the noms and wins for The Last of Us. However...

Why in the hell did it take home "Outstanding Innovation in Gaming"?

It was a fantastic game, to be sure, but just what in the fuck did it innovate?!

And actually, looking through the list again, there are a number of picks I'm confused about. (not in regards to TLoU) Seems many of them are based solely on sales figures and less on the actual quality of the content within.

I agree and apparently so does Bruce Straley (one of the games directors) he has a tweet saying it should have gone to Papers Please or Tearaway.

ajapam:
While I agree that TLOU probably didn't deserve the innovation award (that should've gone to Brothers, Papers Please, or The Stanley Parable in my opinion,) I think people really gloss over the guts it took to put that gameplay in such a big-budget action game. They really put an effort in to make it fit with the tone of the story. It was brutal without being silly, resources were scarce (usually reserved for niche horror games,) there was a huge emphasis on exploration and character interaction in addition to combat, and they finally ditched that stupid health regen that I personally got sick of around 2008. Plus it was one of the few modern stealth-focused games that actually punished you for being detected. It seems like every other "stealth" game these days just lets you blast everyone away, and you only suffer a minor loss of ammo. You can blast away in TLOU but you will pay for it dearly in ammo and crafting tools. I think the dedication to storytelling and atmosphere embedded within the action gameplay itself is somewhat of an innovation to say the least.

Sorry for the mini-rant. I've just seen so many people bash TLOU for "generic" gameplay and then give a lame corridor shooter like Bioshock: Infinite a pass for some reason. I really enjoyed almost everything in The Last of Us... except for the Clicker encounters. Those were annoying

Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and Condemned games were all in the same build of survival horror, and they were quite big budget for their time. Still doesn't explain why The Last of Us was rewarded for innovation. There just is no case for it.

I think Kevin VanOrd puts it best from Gamespot: People defending TLOU for innovation speak to the game's quality just like you did, not to the actual ideas or mechanics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mudxkwGOoqE#t=38m20s

It's a bit worrying what innovation means if a game with many of the similar mechanics and storytelling found in other games wins this award.

I hate that The Last of Us seem to get lot more criticism for not innovating than any other big budget titles.

But since it took the innovation award, I say the criticism is fair this time.

Moeez:

ajapam:
While I agree that TLOU probably didn't deserve the innovation award (that should've gone to Brothers, Papers Please, or The Stanley Parable in my opinion,) I think people really gloss over the guts it took to put that gameplay in such a big-budget action game. They really put an effort in to make it fit with the tone of the story. It was brutal without being silly, resources were scarce (usually reserved for niche horror games,) there was a huge emphasis on exploration and character interaction in addition to combat, and they finally ditched that stupid health regen that I personally got sick of around 2008. Plus it was one of the few modern stealth-focused games that actually punished you for being detected. It seems like every other "stealth" game these days just lets you blast everyone away, and you only suffer a minor loss of ammo. You can blast away in TLOU but you will pay for it dearly in ammo and crafting tools. I think the dedication to storytelling and atmosphere embedded within the action gameplay itself is somewhat of an innovation to say the least.

Sorry for the mini-rant. I've just seen so many people bash TLOU for "generic" gameplay and then give a lame corridor shooter like Bioshock: Infinite a pass for some reason. I really enjoyed almost everything in The Last of Us... except for the Clicker encounters. Those were annoying

Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and Condemned games were all in the same build of survival horror, and they were quite big budget for their time. Still doesn't explain why The Last of Us was rewarded for innovation. There just is no case for it.

I think Kevin VanOrd puts it best from Gamespot: People defending TLOU for innovation speak to the game's quality just like you did, not to the actual ideas or mechanics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mudxkwGOoqE#t=38m20s

It's a bit worrying what innovation means if a game with many of the similar mechanics and storytelling found in other games wins this award.

Did you even read 90% of what I wrote? I don't think so. It seems as though you just read the last 2 sentences
To reiterate, it's not THAT innovative. But relative to most AAA games right now, it is. It's like what Kanye West is to mainstream rap. Love him or hate him, he's fairly creative for a mainstream rapper even if he's not all that interesting in the grand scheme of things

ajapam:

Moeez:

ajapam:
While I agree that TLOU probably didn't deserve the innovation award (that should've gone to Brothers, Papers Please, or The Stanley Parable in my opinion,) I think people really gloss over the guts it took to put that gameplay in such a big-budget action game. They really put an effort in to make it fit with the tone of the story. It was brutal without being silly, resources were scarce (usually reserved for niche horror games,) there was a huge emphasis on exploration and character interaction in addition to combat, and they finally ditched that stupid health regen that I personally got sick of around 2008. Plus it was one of the few modern stealth-focused games that actually punished you for being detected. It seems like every other "stealth" game these days just lets you blast everyone away, and you only suffer a minor loss of ammo. You can blast away in TLOU but you will pay for it dearly in ammo and crafting tools. I think the dedication to storytelling and atmosphere embedded within the action gameplay itself is somewhat of an innovation to say the least.

Sorry for the mini-rant. I've just seen so many people bash TLOU for "generic" gameplay and then give a lame corridor shooter like Bioshock: Infinite a pass for some reason. I really enjoyed almost everything in The Last of Us... except for the Clicker encounters. Those were annoying

Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and Condemned games were all in the same build of survival horror, and they were quite big budget for their time. Still doesn't explain why The Last of Us was rewarded for innovation. There just is no case for it.

I think Kevin VanOrd puts it best from Gamespot: People defending TLOU for innovation speak to the game's quality just like you did, not to the actual ideas or mechanics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mudxkwGOoqE#t=38m20s

It's a bit worrying what innovation means if a game with many of the similar mechanics and storytelling found in other games wins this award.

Did you even read 90% of what I wrote? I don't think so. It seems as though you just read the last 2 sentences
To reiterate, it's not THAT innovative. But relative to most AAA games right now, it is. It's like what Kanye West is to mainstream rap. Love him or hate him, he's fairly creative for a mainstream rapper even if he's not all that interesting in the grand scheme of things

But that's like based on the past few years of AAA games, and whichever way you move the goalpost it still can't be "innovative" by definition if it's not new in some way when previous AAA games were like that. If we take that logic seriously, any game that isn't a shooter is innovative.

Moeez:

ajapam:

Moeez:

Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and Condemned games were all in the same build of survival horror, and they were quite big budget for their time. Still doesn't explain why The Last of Us was rewarded for innovation. There just is no case for it.

I think Kevin VanOrd puts it best from Gamespot: People defending TLOU for innovation speak to the game's quality just like you did, not to the actual ideas or mechanics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mudxkwGOoqE#t=38m20s

It's a bit worrying what innovation means if a game with many of the similar mechanics and storytelling found in other games wins this award.

Did you even read 90% of what I wrote? I don't think so. It seems as though you just read the last 2 sentences
To reiterate, it's not THAT innovative. But relative to most AAA games right now, it is. It's like what Kanye West is to mainstream rap. Love him or hate him, he's fairly creative for a mainstream rapper even if he's not all that interesting in the grand scheme of things

But that's like based on the past few years of AAA games, and whichever way you move the goalpost it still can't be "innovative" by definition if it's not new in some way when previous AAA games were like that. If we take that logic seriously, any game that isn't a shooter is innovative.

The Last of Us is hardly like the games you mentioned, though. It just borrows aspects from them and uses them to create a unique whole. It's relation to Resident Evil is... it has guns and zombies? Silent Hill has a focus on story and characters in common with The Last of Us, but again it isn't remotely similar gameplay wise. And Condemned (from what I remember) is basically just a straight horror game with first-person fighting mechanics. The Last Of Us takes mechanics from those and puts them into what's essentially a stealth action game.

If you really want to capture the essence of The Last of Us, it's basically Splinter Cell gameplay with the tone of Spec Ops: The Line. Playing Spec Ops is more discomforting than it is fun. I occasionally got that feeling from TLOU, but the gameplay helped make it a bit more complex. The difference is that Joel's interactions with Ellie keep him relatable, and The Last of Us uses those mechanics it borrowed from older games to make the combat like more of a fight for survival than a murder spree. The gameplay itself supports the fact that Joel is both monstrous and relatable. Most games have gameplay that supports some kind of story element, but I think TLOU did it in a more complex way than I've seen before.

So, by taking old mechanics and twisting them to fit in a modern cinematic action game, they've created one that ups the bar for the genre. It manages to avoid the pitfall of ludonarrative dissonance while keeping the characters likeable, and tells a great story while keeping a pretty good gameplay/cutscene ratio. You could argue that Spec Ops did this, but that was a much simpler attempt. It was a great game, but it didn't do a whole lot with the core gameplay other than making the enemies American. I can't think of anything else in the genre that put much effort into this kind of thing. It's not just about the gameplay, it's about the way we think of it in relation to the story. Had TLOU stuck with modern mechanics, it would just be a slightly better version your average "likeable serial killer" action game like Uncharted. Refining a new formula for games with the thoughtful use of old mechanics is certainly a small innovation, and it's one that I hope has a big impact. Innovation comes in many shapes and sizes.

My original point wasn't that TLOU was super innovative anyway. It was that it's only kind of innovative, but that the gameplay is fairly unique and ballsy right now. I wouldn't even nominate TLOU to win an award for innovation.

I'll just put this here in case you want to continue ignoring what I'm actually writing so you can be a videogame hipster: THE LARST OV USA IST INAVATIVE CUZ TIS GUD OK

ajapam:

Moeez:

ajapam:

Did you even read 90% of what I wrote? I don't think so. It seems as though you just read the last 2 sentences
To reiterate, it's not THAT innovative. But relative to most AAA games right now, it is. It's like what Kanye West is to mainstream rap. Love him or hate him, he's fairly creative for a mainstream rapper even if he's not all that interesting in the grand scheme of things

But that's like based on the past few years of AAA games, and whichever way you move the goalpost it still can't be "innovative" by definition if it's not new in some way when previous AAA games were like that. If we take that logic seriously, any game that isn't a shooter is innovative.

The Last of Us is hardly like the games you mentioned, though. It just borrows aspects from them and uses them to create a unique whole. It's relation to Resident Evil is... it has guns and zombies? Silent Hill has a focus on story and characters in common with The Last of Us, but again it isn't remotely similar gameplay wise. And Condemned (from what I remember) is basically just a straight horror game with first-person fighting mechanics. The Last Of Us takes mechanics from those and puts them into what's essentially a stealth action game.

If you really want to capture the essence of The Last of Us, it's basically Splinter Cell gameplay with the tone of Spec Ops: The Line. Playing Spec Ops is more discomforting than it is fun. I occasionally got that feeling from TLOU, but the gameplay helped make it a bit more complex. The difference is that Joel's interactions with Ellie keep him relatable, and The Last of Us uses those mechanics it borrowed from older games to make the combat like more of a fight for survival than a murder spree. The gameplay itself supports the fact that Joel is both monstrous and relatable. Most games have gameplay that supports some kind of story element, but I think TLOU did it in a more complex way than I've seen before.

So, by taking old mechanics and twisting them to fit in a modern cinematic action game, they've created one that ups the bar for the genre. It manages to avoid the pitfall of ludonarrative dissonance while keeping the characters likeable, and tells a great story while keeping a pretty good gameplay/cutscene ratio. You could argue that Spec Ops did this, but that was a much simpler attempt. It was a great game, but it didn't do a whole lot with the core gameplay other than making the enemies American. I can't think of anything else in the genre that put much effort into this kind of thing. It's not just about the gameplay, it's about the way we think of it in relation to the story. Had TLOU stuck with modern mechanics, it would just be a slightly better version your average "likeable serial killer" action game like Uncharted. Refining a new formula for games with the thoughtful use of old mechanics is certainly a small innovation, and it's one that I hope has a big impact. Innovation comes in many shapes and sizes.

My original point wasn't that TLOU was super innovative anyway. It was that it's only kind of innovative, but that the gameplay is fairly unique and ballsy right now. I wouldn't even nominate TLOU to win an award for innovation.

I'll just put this here in case you want to continue ignoring what I'm actually writing so you can be a videogame hipster: THE LARST OV USA IST INAVATIVE CUZ TIS GUD OK

Then we're agreed it shouldn't have been nominated, good.

"Refining a new formula for games with the thoughtful use of old mechanics is certainly a small innovation" that's called evolution. Unless if you think Titanfall should be considered innovative, then we just have different definitions.

Not sure what the ad hominem about hipsters was, though.

 

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 58499)