The Last of Us Part I (PS5) Review | VGChartz

VGChartz's Lee Mehr: "The Last of Us Part I walks a tightrope between exciting time and uncomfortable wedge about a quasi-remake's fair market value. It's not a fun way to lead a conclusion, but I also recognize the circumstances that compelled me to get it won't be the same for others; you have to be excited for what technological advancements can do to these semi-old gameplay & storytelling bones. Despite meeting those specific thresholds, I still yearned for something more... concrete that could match my engagement as the original did back then. Fortunately, those pangs of reserved disappointment don't distract enough from what’s otherwise one of 2022's top titles."

[generic-user-name]

"The Last of Us Part I walks a tightrope between exciting time and uncomfortable wedge about a quasi-remake's fair market value."

I wonder do movies/music/books/art pieces get judged on their cost? And will TLOU P1 get re-reviewed when the price drops in a couple of months?

[Crows90]

No real critic should care about the price in a review. They can mention it but it should not add or detract points.

The hate the game has gotten for the price point is legitimate. Imagine a movie that released years ago, rereleased at a premium price with only special effect improvements. All else staying the same. Yeah people should complain about that. $70 for a game is as premium as it gets right now.

[anast]

There are some old a%& expensive movies out there on blue-ray. Not to mention anniversary and definitive editions of every form of entertainment.

[VersusDMC]

Several downgraded ports of games come out for the switch every year for 60. Part 1 redid every texture to current Naughty dog quality. Don't see why that isn't worth 70 by comparison.

You can say that isn't worth it to you...and it wasn't for me. But it is magnitudes more effort than these remaster ports coming out at 60.

So i don't see why Part 1 especially deserves "hate".

[King_Noctis]

"No real critic should care about the price in a review. They can mention it but it should not add or detract points."

Lol what? Every reviews, not just regarding to video game, judge a product based on its price. If a Toyota Prius suddenly cost as much as a Lamborghini then the reviewer shouldn't call that out? The Last of Us was a really really good game. But the remake is missing out on the multiplayer with higher price tag and they should be called out for that.

[coolbeans]

-"No real critic should care about the price in a review."

Beginning your reply with a No True Scotsman fallacy isn't really helping your argument.

[Crows90]

@replies

To each his own but I thought i was clear. In every instance the price shouldn't affect the review score of a product. Devs and companies can be greedy and ask for more than a product is worth. The point is that each game should be reviewed by its own merits not whatever price tag the finance department or marketing puts on it.

I thought i was also clear that it can be mentioned but shouldn't affect the quality of the game. If we are to judge a game by quality and price then most triple A games should get horrible reviews considering indie games have and can be amazing at a third of the price. That unbalances everything and makes no sense. Many indie games are better than triple A games at a much lower price. This would automatically make the algorithm of reviews unbalanced. Triple A games would be at a huge disadvantage and yet we know that's not the case. For example. If an indie game is a 10/10 and costs $20 then that same indie game if it costed $60 would go down to 9/10 or 8/10 or lower simply because of the price even though it's amazing game. So yeah that doesn't make sense. Not to me anyways.

The price affects buying potential not quality of product. And I agree that all overpriced games or products should be called out but that does not equal a worse product.the multiplayer was missing but they added dlc.

[RauLeCreuset]

"Imagine a movie that released years ago, rereleased at a premium price with only special effect improvements."

https://www.forbes.com/site...

[coolbeans]

-"Devs and companies can be greedy and ask for more than a product is worth. The point is that each game should be reviewed by its own merits not whatever price tag the finance department or marketing puts on it."

So if a game is judged by its own merits in a review and one consideration when evaluating it is "the retail value will be suspect to many people for x/y reasons" then everything's good, right? Your phrasing is so weird here b/c you treat these two things as though they're oil and water. Let's say - hypothetically - you're playing something that feels overvalued, wouldn't that also be a part of mentally assessing it by its own merits?

[Knushwood Butt]

I thought Avatar was crap.

[Kran]

Uhhh yes, a reviewer SHOULD ALWAYS judge a game based on its cost and value for money at launch? Because there are some games that are absolute scams and broke messes for the price they are.

[coolbeans]

I mean... outside of art pieces, those other entertainment mediums are typically a 1/3 or 1/4 of the cost of a standard-priced game, so I don't see why value wouldn't get a heavier emphasis here. It's also weird to compare those other things strictly on their merits when we're talking about the remake of a remaster of an original game. You shouldn't be surprised if (non-sale) price point comes up when talking about an extended or director's cut.

-"And will TLOU P1 get re-reviewed when the price drops in a couple of months?"

Ummm.. no? When has this ever been an expectation in reviewing media? By this same metric, every site should be perpetually re-reviewing every game during a sale or permanent price drop. That's just not how it works.

[generic-user-name]

"outside of art pieces, those other entertainment mediums are typically a 1/3 or 1/4 of the cost of a standard-priced game"

There are plenty of special editions, blu rays, 4ks etc etc of your favourite movies that are quite expensive, even if you already paid full price to watch them in the cinema.

"By this same metric, every site should be perpetually re-reviewing every game during a sale or permanent price drop"

Yeah, unless they actually stick to reviewing the game itself instead of its cost. A review score should be timeless so that I can look it up in 2024, see the scores and help inform my decision, instead I'll know I can't trust those scores because they've passed their shelf-life date.

[coolbeans]

-"There are plenty of special editions, blu rays, 4ks etc etc of your favourite movies that are quite expensive, even if you already paid full price to watch them in the cinema."

Even then the typical one (for a movie) goes for around $30-$40. But even with examples of "special editions," the conversation as to whether it's WORTH your investment tends to come up.

-"A review score should be timeless so that I can look it up in 2024, see the scores and help inform my decision, instead I'll know I can't trust those scores because they've passed their shelf-life date."

You're epitomizing one of the most annoying user traits on this site: extrapolating slices of text and acting as though that colors the ENTIRE thing. Plus, discussing the odd predicament of a premium-priced quasi-remake to a game that's already been remastered AND is also available to play on a PS5 would be a natural fit regardless of when you decide to read it.

On top of this, the way you're presenting this argument when the description (not just one sentence) does what you want makes me question your sincerity.

[anast]

To be realistic "you" pay around $10 for a movie ticket then get a $20-30 blue-ray charge for the same movie you just paid $10 for. That's around the same markup as this game.

Movies are worse because the first time you pay for the movie you leave with nothing. In this case, to actually possess the good in question you have to buy it a second time.

[coolbeans]

@anast

I'm bumping the price up more for Steelbook/Special Edition BluRays by default.

-"That's around the same markup as this game."

But there's a difference of kind and scale. When you look at movies, the one-time "rental" of a ticket carries the assumption of watching a film with immensely greater tech than the average home provides. That Blu-Ray does come with physical ownership, but not the same level of expected tech at your house.

But I think this distracts from the more crucial discussion: the best way to properly evaluate what we can call "premium remakes." I don't think you're obligated to carry the same enthusiasm & score as you did for something a decade ago, even if it's considered the "definitive edition" of that thing.

[generic-user-name]

"Even then the typical one (for a movie) goes for around $30-$40."

You want to excuse movies for being cheaper than games but don't acknowledge movies are typically 1-3 hours of content compared to TLOUP1's 15-18? All of a sudden the value changes.

"extrapolating slices of text and acting as though that colors the ENTIRE thing"

I can't control how incorrectly you comprehend what I write. This review brought up many different aspects, I am talking about one of those. I'm not going to act like the mentioning of the price as a negative does not have some bearing the final verdict however.

"Plus, discussing the odd predicament of a premium-priced quasi-remake to a game that's already been remastered AND is also available to play on a PS5 would be a natural fit regardless of when you decide to read it."

The fact that it has already been remastered and already available on PS5 are also points that are redundant to a review. What if I never owned a PS console before the PS5? What if I'm one of the millions who won't even know about the existence of TLOU until the HBO show launches? Simply review the product as it is, don't bring in your outside variables that may or may not apply to your readers.

Oh and let's drop the 'quasi-remake' shtick, a 1:1 remake is still a remake, already hard to take a review serious when they can't even properly categorise what it is they are reviewing.

[coolbeans]

-"You want to excuse movies for being cheaper than games but don't acknowledge movies are typically 1-3 hours of content compared to TLOUP1's 15-18? All of a sudden the value changes."

Are we supposed to do direct 1:1 time comparisons across everything now? I'm not really sure how that works with my previous response when I'm fixating on the personal *WORTH* of a movie's special edition or whatnot. Whether looking at movies' or games' price point, there's still a contention about a remake or remaster's inherent value in relation to the context with which its released. Here: there is a legit remaster capable of being played on the same hardware. Giving that background is totally fair game.

-"I can't control how incorrectly you comprehend what I write."

You CAN control how dishonestly you want to frame the general context before making your argument though, which you don't really care about.

-"I'm not going to act like the mentioning of the price as a negative does not have some bearing the final verdict however."

Speaking against my supposed poor reading comprehension whilst writing this out is crazy projection. Your first quote is literally a neutral statement about its special situation and how that price hurdle will be tough to navigate for different people, THEN going into the qualitative assessment.

-"The fact that it has already been remastered and already available on PS5 are also points that are redundant to a review."

WHAT? That's been noted across the vast majority of its reviews though (even the more positive ones).

-"What if I never owned a PS console before the PS5? What if..."

Wait, wait, wait. So, the review's doing a disservice in grappling with the wider context around this remake and its tension over value & removed features... but it's good to bring in these other outside variables that don't even apply to the reviewer? You just want considerations that give favorable results, not some consistent metric.

-"Oh and let's drop the 'quasi-remake' shtick, a 1:1 remake is still a remake..."

Nah. When we have so many examples of remakes gutting and re-doing far more than what's done here, it's fine to be honest about Part I's situation by comparison. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a deliberate pejorative either.

That fact that this critique comes against an '8/10 Great' score is all the more annoying.

[generic-user-name]

"Are we supposed to do direct 1:1 time comparisons across everything now?"
"Even then the typical one (for a movie) goes for around $30-$40."

You are the one trying to hand-wave away the comparison to other mediums by making the excuse that Blu Rays are cheaper. Only fair to bring in the vast increase in content in games compared to movies to justify their higher cost.

"Here: there is a legit remaster capable of being played on the same hardware. Giving that background is totally fair game."

1. It is not wrong to acknowledge that. It is wrong to judge the remake based on that however.
2. How many Blu Ray players allow you to also run DVDs? How often do you think "Geez guys, we have this on DVD already, do we really need a Blu Ray version?" comes up in reviews?

"You CAN control how dishonestly"

Lie all you want.

"Speaking against my supposed poor reading comprehension whilst writing this out is crazy projection. Your first quote is literally a neutral statement..."

"The Last of Us Part I walks a tightrope between exciting time and uncomfortable wedge about a quasi-remake's fair market value."

Please, spare me the inanity of your ramblings. There is no "uncomfortable wedge" about this game's value. I can see that by looking at the game. A quote like this would apply much more to the 2014 Remaster, what did that change other than a res update and frame update? It was practically a port to PS4 that arrived one year late with a €10 discount to apologise for the wait. Leading his 'conclusion' with that sentence is a joke.

"WHAT? That's been noted across the vast majority of its reviews though (even the more positive ones)."

Oh, I don't mean to single out this one specific reviewer, every single one of them that made this a negative talking point are equally as guilty.

"Wait, wait, wait. So, the review's doing a disservice in grappling with the wider context around this remake and its tension over value & removed features... but it's good to bring in these other outside variables that don't even apply to the reviewer? You just want considerations that give favorable results, not some consistent metric."

This is in response to YOU bringing up those points to me. The reviewer did not lead his conclusion with the existence of the remaster or it being playable on PS5, just about market value.

"Nah. When we have so many examples of remakes gutting and re-doing far more than what's done here, it's fine to be honest about Part I's situation by comparison."

Unfortunately you don't get to dictate the a game that has been 'remade' is not a 'remake' (the clue is in the wording though). Not every remake needs to be a RE2-style reimagining to qualify. Different types of remake exist.

[coolbeans]

-"You are the one trying to hand-wave away the comparison to other mediums by making the excuse that Blu Rays are cheaper."

But I tried to center it around personal WORTH a couple replies prior. We have a tendency to weigh products' inherent value exponentially more when costs climb higher and higher. A matinee movie being less than a hour of a minimum wage job won't sting relative to a half day's work with a game. I figured that's understandable for anyone who's put down money on new games. But maybe it's best to drop this portion of the conversation anyways.

-"1. It is not wrong to acknowledge that. It is wrong to judge the remake based on that however."

This is just corporate apologia. Neither this review nor any other roped this issue to the fore on their own. Sony did that. The expectations were set BY THE VERY PEOPLE SELLING THE GAME and - to no one's surprise but a few randos - it's judged accordingly to that. Desperately trying to isolate this otherwise relatable context b/c you want it to have the same precious score as before has so many contradictions.

-"Please, spare me the inanity of your ramblings."

JFC... I can't imagine the burden you must bare being both this wrong and pretentious at the same time.

-"There is no "uncomfortable wedge" about this game's value."

C'mon now... literally penned as a "remake" without the original's multiplayer at a higher price is already going to start a conversation. You're absolutely lying to yourself. And, no, the Remaster is less applicable for up-rezzing and bundling in TLOU + the Season Pass content for $50. You can say it was padding out their lackluster 2014 schedule and whatever, but that's kinda why I ignored it anyways. Part I fits far more comfortably b/c of that tension in just how much work they'd done on the gameplay side of things plus this other baggage.

-"The reviewer did not lead his conclusion with the existence of the remaster or it being playable on PS5, just about market value."

I don't see why that just doesn't naturally apply. The context around Part I's market value feeds into the fact that it's been released, remastered, and now remade (which is also stated in the opening). Bringing up these contentions, discussing how it was still worth giving it a shot, and so on is way more laidback than how you framed it at the start.

-"Unfortunately you don't get to dictate the a game that has been 'remade' is not a 'remake' (the clue is in the wording though)."

So, if a game is re-released or whatnot, given modest up-rez & higher framerate, and called a full-on remake, would you go along with that developer/publisher? Of course I don't have that final say... but that doesn't discount my say altogether. If you see someone saying a game is being remade and that comes with a qualifier like "yes we remade every single texture in this world" that's not going to be given the same credit as someone going in there, gutting levels, re-fashioning them with appropriate AI, etc. Of course, Naughty Dog did MUCH MORE than better textures too, but it's a weird situation when you consider the more expansive combat vocabulary of Part II compared to here. It's those considerations that are measured while... still getting a great 8/10 score. Which is the most insane part of this continued convo.

[StarkR3ality]

The issue isn't the game which is incredible, nor the price point or whether other forms of media re-release Anniversary/Remasters.

Compare Last of us to what other Devs are doing with the free next gen patches that are happening. Are they on the level of what ND has done? No course not, there are a few examples that stand out such as Resident Evil, Cyberpunk 2077, Witcher 3 (which I'm sure will be a huge jump) and FFV remake. All free, all huge improvements on the original releases.

If you are charging 70x the amount that other people are, you're gunna have question asked whether it's games or music or movies. If it was any other company they would get torn apart but Sony have some blind fans. We will see what people say when the Zero Dawn remaster comes out for £70 because you gobbled up this one.