The Last Of Us is not an 'overpriced, marginally interactive film,' and its gameplay trumps all of the cutscenes, which make up about two or three hours (At the very most) of a nearly fifteen hour experience.

Um, please play the game yourself. Sure, it's at least 14 hours, maybe more if you really spend time on it. And on Survival difficulty it will probably a fair chunk longer. And the combat encounters are incredibly replayable, so you could probably get twice the game out of that.

I'd say it's worth paying them £40 to support their crafting one of the best games of all time, so that they can go on to make more masterful works.

This is great. I'd like to use it in arguments with people. Have you got a reference at all, mate?

Yeah, that's some good work dude.

Yeah, it takes a lot of effort frankly. It's a hard game, and in a very different way to Demon's/Dark Souls. That's a bummer about being used to shooting games and killing all the enemies. You really have to forget about that. Treat it almost like real life, that you'll be as safe as possible. (I often start "one life…

Ah, I think the gameplay is definitely amazing enough to be replayable, I'm still finding different shit happening every time, especially on harder difficulties. But to each his own!

The game's at least 15 hours long. Don't worry about that!

You joking? Not only is the game about 16 hours long, if you play it to explore everything, but almost every combat encounter is huge and incredibly dynamic.

Clickers make up maybe 20% of the enemies in the game, and if you're relying on shooting to beat the encounters, frankly, you're playing it wrong. You should be using stealth, using distraction items (bricks/bottles), improvising bombs and molotovs and making sure you constantly explore (even mid-fight) to find…

I'm really sorry, but it's not that.

Nobody answered what you said at all, sigh.

I couldn't disagree more. I found the realism of it unbelievably immersive; barring the player character's unrealistic propensity to absorb bullets, I found the stealth, the combat, the improvisational quality of it, unbelievably compelling.

See my comm at ekesp93. Basically, I guess you're right, but it goes without saying, really!

Yeah, I mean, there would still have to be specific routes to take. In that sense it would be linear. The routes would just be spread over a much larger area and combined with countless other intersecting routes, and police/ pursuer A.I.

In very tiny, usually closed areas, yes. I.e. two or three rooftops connected, then an indoor section.

As ceshquire said, it was something originally seen in games like Timesplitters 2. In that game, if you completed challenge maps, you would unlock more stuff; more multiplayer maps, tile sets, characters, cheats, weapons, etc. A seminal system which had gameplay benefits.

I couldn't disagree more. I felt that what Mirrors Edge's initial promise was, was thrilling chase sequences and improvising your own routes through the levels. They touted this all over the place before the game came out. Then when it released, it was a nearly 100% linear, on rails free running game. Which I was okay…

The series as a whole is ridiculous. As works of art/ cinematic videogame. Just over the top to an agonizing extent. But for gameplay they're pretty fantastic. MGS3 is easily the best one thus far, I really recommend it. There's no Raiden, no Vamp. None of the convoluted plot asshattery of the modern-day ones is…

Souls were bloody ingenious for that. I, for the first time ever in a game, resorted to rapiers and spears in Demon's Souls, just so I could be precise and accurate. If this game tries to match that level of combat strategy and intensity, it'd be brilliant.