The Last of Us Part 2 - Now updated for PS5 for at 60fps

[JohnnyRyall]

On the ending, I don't think it's implied at any point that there are others like Ellie. That would somewhat dull the moral dilemma presented at the end.

 

The Fireflies have operated on others, but none had Ellie's immunity.

[Smitty]

12 minutes ago, angel said:

 

Obviously he's been desensitised and corrupted mentally by the 20 years or so event he's survived through, but he believes hes acting morally in saving his self adoped daughter. Odd that you praise the game for it's ambiguity and story that bears much debate afterwards, then disagree with a fairly common interpretation if it.

 

And the people who Joel kills probably believe they are acting morally in attacking a big bearded guy who's creeping around their group and looks like the sort of guy who will probably slit your throat to get your stuff.

 

Which is who Joel is! He's been in the ambushes! He's done all that shit to get by. He's not 'scum', though, he's just violent. But just as Joel doesn't hesitate to kill them in perceived self defense, they don't hesitate to do the same.

 

The tragedy of these encounters is that no-one really knows the intention of the others, but they lIve in fear and act aggressively in order to protect themselves. Of course there are those maniacs in the APC, and they seem like sadists, but it's hard to be sure that everyone else isn't just using the scant information available to them, or the lessons learned from living out there that Joel might also have learnt, to make decisions that are all about looking after number one.

 

Why take a chance with a stranger? Just kill them. They might kill you. Or maybe they don't plan to kill Joel but after being attacked he lethally counters and everyone moves to put him down. Switch that around, with them in Joel's place and Joel in theirs. 

 

In these scenarios is Joel a survivor or a predator? Is he a victim or a perpetrator? My point is that isn't as clear as some make it out. 

 

If Joel is morally ambiguous (er...) than moral status of the other people in the world is morally ambiguous. But most of what I read that takes an angle on this comes down to 'Joel so honourable, great honour, for saving daughter - humanity worthless dregs that must be spat on'. 

[Stanley]

1 hour ago, angel said:

 

Only thematically, within the game's art style. They are sat in a Firefly outpost, hence the sign.

Yeah I didn't mean within the story itself. I often used to stare at that title screen, trying to work out from where in the game it was from, or whether I'd reached that location yet. Other times I just found it calming, if a little melancholy. 

[Smitty]

You can meditate on that idea about humanity being worthless but me and mine being good and decent, that comes out of those viewpoints I was critiquing.

 

Like, everyone's a wanker nowadays, aren't people awful but my me and my friends are decent. When we're all much more similar than we are different. 

[angel]

9 minutes ago, Punished Smitty said:

 

And the people who kills probably believe they are acting morally in attacking a big bearded guy who's creeping around their group and looks like the sort of guy who will probably slit your throat to get your stuff.

 

Which is who Joel is! He's been in the ambushes! He's done all that shit to get by. He's not 'scum', though, he's just violent. 

 

If Joel is morally ambiguous (er...) than moral status of the other people in the world is morally ambiguous. But most of what I read that takes an angle on this comes down to 'Joel so honourable, great honour, for saving daughter - humanity worthless dregs that must be spat on'. 

 

But the people in this thread, us discussing it now, I don't see anyone saying Joel is a pure hero. Only that in his world, having seen all he has, fighting for the survival of the one he loves (the last one, again, thematic), that we can understand and go along with the choices he made. I think in the world of TLOU, humanity will only come back from this when the infected eventually die out (starvation, or being hunted out of existance) over the course of tens, maybe hundreds of years. Theres no quick fix, sacrificing Ellie wouldn't even save North America never mind the world, Joel saw this and thought 'fuck that'. By that point, the out of control power drunk Fireflies thought they could take that decision out of his hands, violently I might add, so he took them down. I was happy with how the story played out, and his actions within it.

[Down by Law]

22 minutes ago, Punished Smitty said:

 

Nah. One of her guys knocks him down when he goes towards her. That's it. Marlene even this guard to 'stop it'.

 

Then she asks him to be escorted from the building. That's happening and then Joel attacks the guy. He cruelly shoots the guy in the gut - so he can torture him to give up some information, and then he executes him.

 

 

The guy who escorts you out the building pushes and antagonises Joel into his responce- "give me an excuse" granted the response is extreme but totally keeping within the character.

 

Joel has spent a year travelling across America with Ellie and to be , in his eyes, double-crossed by the 'saviours' they have been looking for is too much to take, he turns on the guy and asks where she is. The fact the rest of the fireflies in the hospital try to exterminate him on sight, is their mistake.

 

Quote

Then he proceeds on to kill everyone else. Christ knows what the stories are of the people he kills, the things they've been through, the stuff they've suffered over, the efforts they've put into trying to build a better world. But they're dehumanised, recast as simply 'bastards' and only that, because they stand in Joel's way and people empathise with Joel and Joel only. 

 

You see, that's your interpretation. For all we know, they Fireflies could have been wiping out camps of survivors all across america, taking their supplies, because they believe in 'the cause'. It's one of the good things about the Multiplayer mode, where you choose to be the Fireflies or the Hunters, where they both try to wipe each other out to claim supplies. Who is to say they aren't the bad guys? who is to say the operation would have worked? There are so many shades of grey, that's why it's a good story.

 

[Smitty]

1 minute ago, angel said:

Theres no quick fix, sacrificing Ellie wouldn't even save North America never mind the world

 

You have no idea if that's true. It could have been the cure. It could have changed everything. It could have been a failure. 

 

The question is what right does Joel have to condemn the whole world to perpetual suffering?

 

2 minutes ago, angel said:

I was happy with how the story played out, and his actions within it.

 

I mean, that's fine, but I think you're a maniac. *shrugs*

[Smitty]

1 minute ago, Down by Law said:

 

The guy who escorts you out the building pushes and antagonises Joel into his reponce- "give me an excuse" granted the response is extreme but totally keeping within the character.

 

 

Oh, COME ON. Joel was going to find the first opportunity to kill him that he could. He doesn't just go on a killing spree because the guy warns him to keep his distance. That's his character.

 

2 minutes ago, Down by Law said:

The fact the rest of the fireflies in the hospital try to exterminate him on sight, is their mistake.

 

I think it's quite sensible to attack an armed man who just executed one of your people. 

[angel]

5 minutes ago, Punished Smitty said:

 

You have no idea if that's true. It could have been the cure. It could have changed everything. It could have been a failure. 

 

The question is what right does Joel have to condemn the whole world to perpetual suffering?

 

 

I mean, that's fine, but I think you're a maniac. *shrugs*

 

The fact is that even if it worked, which was only the fireflies word, and even if it was able to be distributed (which in this world would be nigh on impossible), it still may not have worked for long.

 

The right Joel had was that she wasn't an adult, in ours or the American legal system Ellie is underage, she didn't have the right to donate herself at that age, he would still be her legal guardian. Technically, not true as they arent related, but he had assumed the role of parent. He made the decision for her, that's the story, that's it. I happen to agree with his choice, you don't, and that's the brilliance of the story of TLOU.

[JoeK]

When the ending came, I thought it was perfect. I'd have done absolutely the same thing. After all the horrible stuff that has happened in the world, I'd not want any part in saving such an appalling species.

 

Why should Joel care about the bigger picture?

 

For me, 'Last of Us' was a fairly literal truth as far as I'm concerned. Let the world be done with us and give other things a chance to make things better.

 

Terribly depressing obviously, but there we go.

 

[Gorf King]

1 hour ago, angel said:

Obviously he's been desensitised and corrupted mentally by the 20 years or so event he's survived through, but he believes hes acting morally in saving his self adoped daughter. Odd that you praise the game for it's ambiguity and story that bears much debate afterwards, then disagree with a fairly common interpretation if it.

 

The game is ambiguous in that there's no 'right' or 'wrong' interpretation of the themes or behaviours in it. There's no right or wrong interpretation of anyone's behaviour unless it's subjected to a moral code, and the protagonist of TLOU doesn't have one, or at least doesn't abide by it. Survival isn't a moral code. Kill or be killed isn't. That's all Joel ever does, and he also sometimes takes satisfaction from doing it. I'd describe Joel's actions as worse than those of animals that kill to survive, because they don't feel they have to lie about it. Joel does, because he knows what he's done is wrong - which is why he lies to Ellie at the end. He knows she would hate him for the truth of his actions. So he's not even amoral. His actions are actually immoral, because he sometimes knows what he's doing is wrong. He's aware of right and wrong, but he chooses survival - or even just the fulfilment of his own desires - over that every time. He knows he's killed 'innocent' people. He shrugs it off.

 

He sometimes kills to protect Ellie - sometimes. Animals also kill to protect their offspring. They don't have a moral code: choosing to protect your family is not something that requires morals. It's instinct. But Joel's worse, because unlike animals he is aware of what such a code would be. He just chooses to eschew it because he is, as you say, corrupted. Broken. But the seeds of that lack of concern for others are in his nature right from he start, while his daughter is still alive.

 

He doesn't believe he's acting morally at all. Even if he did, there's no evidence that he acts according to any morality, just from the impulse of survival (and, it has to be said, the desire to fulfil his own physical and emotional needs). Part of what TLOU is about is the break up of a wider morality, of a wider society, into familial tribalism. The one hope that is offered of something bigger than that is in the Fireflies and their looked-for cure. Joel snuffs that out, and it's in the tension between the traditional Hero stuff (Marlene - on a mission to save the world; spunky band of rebels; sacrifices her own feelings for the greater good) and the Antihero (Joel - couldn't give a fuck about other people; loner; his own feelings are paramount over the hopes of thousands) that the game raises some interesting points. Not least, because it forces you to play as the selfish anti-hero, and also gives him and therefore you a very direct connection to a vulnerable human being whom your selfishness, your violence will 'protect'. This justifies the actions of what in any other game would be a villain. Even to the point of some claiming he's won a moral victory. It's a great narrative for a video game, because it makes you play the bad guy and paints the hero as the villain.

 

Not that Marlene isn't an absolute cunt, because she evidently is. But she's definitely the Heroic one, and the one with a strong moral code. That's the one you usually play, not the other psycho.

[Smitty]

4 minutes ago, Down by Law said:

 

 

You see, that's your interpretation. For all we know, they Fireflies could have been wiping out camps of survivors all across america, taking their supplies, because they believe in 'the cause'. It's one of the good things about the Multiplayer mode, where you choose to be the Fireflies or the Hunters, where they both try to wipe each other out to claim supplies. Who is to say they aren't the bad guys? who is to say the operation would have worked? There are so many shades of grey, that's why it's a good story.

 

 

I don't know, but I never said I did. What I do know that everyone involved has suffered massively as victims or has caused suffering as perpetrators. I know that the world is drowning in suffering. 

 

I can't say the operation would have worked either, but the possibility is there. The possibility of a cure. It's a far less selfish goal than keeping your surrogate daughter alive. 

 

It's a goal that would actually make all of that suffering mean something. Everyone that died so the Fireflies, Ellie and Joel could get to that point - all of pain would at least have the possibility of leading to something good, rather than just more suffering. 

 

But some people present the only suffering worthy of consideration as Joel's and Ellie's. They paint clear goodies (Joel) and baddies (the Fireflies) when the story simply doesn't support those cut-and-dry characterisations. 

 

If these others are scum, then Joel is scum. If their suffering is irrelevant, if their lives are worth nothing, then why isn't Ellies? 

 

There are shades of grey, but that some present certain things as black and white. And I'm really uncomfortable with the dehumanising language used to describe Joel's antagonists and indeed the whole of humanity. 

 

Joel's attitude is very much 'fuck you, I've got mine' so how people can conclude, even with the morally ambiguous nature of the people aligned against him, that he's some sort of great moral figure I don't know.

 

I come out of the game not being sure if I can back anyone's actions, although i lean to the Fireflies for obvious reasons, but I do so people being sure that they can get behind Joel's.

[Smitty]

17 minutes ago, JoeK said:

When the ending came, I thought it was perfect. I'd have done absolutely the same thing. After all the horrible stuff that has happened in the world, I'd not want any part in saving such an appalling species.

 

 

But the reason Ellie is worth saving (if you take that view) is the same reason that makes humanity worth saving.

 

It's like some people haven't really thought about this properly. I've said this before: how many Ellies are there in the world? How many innocent people that do deserve to live? Out somewhere in the TLOU world is you and your family. Are you scum because some raiders somewhere killed someone? How on earth does that make sense?

 

If humanity is appalling why not shoot Ellie and shoot yourself in the head? Because humanity isn't appaling, not in that total sense. I think this line of thought speaks to the ability of humans to totally 'other' those who aren't in their personal grouping. This is taken to an extreme in this view, because people declare literally every other human, other than the two we have a personal connection to, to be totally worthless.

 

Fuck that other group, they're the dregs of humanity! We're good and if we have to do bad things to survive then it's because of the world we're living in. 

 

By saving Ellie, if you condemn a million more Ellies to death and suffering, how does that make sense? People talk about Ellie as if she is the only decent human being in the world, though of course we see later that she's just as willing to kill to protect herself and her interests as anyone else is.

 

You mention the horrible stuff that has happened in the world. Well, Joel has been party to some of that horrible stuff!

[Smitty]

1 minute ago, Cutter said:

Despite Smitty wobbling round like he's got a full bladder on November 5th I cant wait.

 

Yeah, you definitely needed to add this. 

[angel]

@Gorf King I don't think Ellie would hate Joel for doing what he did for the reasons you think. She's underage, like I say, in society she wouldnt have the right to do what she wanted. Parents are often 'hated' for making what they see as the right decision for their kids. I disagree, I think he does act morally, only his morals are skewed by what he's seen. Obviously its all fiction, but if theres one thing ive learned in life, its that you can't judge people too harshly unless you've walked a mile in their shoes. No one here (obviously, we've not been in this fictional scenario) can accurately judge him because we've not been in that position, we can only apply our cosy life perspective on it. I'm happy with the story, Joel wasnt always a good guy, but my point is I understand his actions, and am happy with his ending choices. That's about as much as I can say on it, that's my perspective and i'm happy with it, and more than happy to see where ND take the story.

[Talk Show Host]

Joel's journey starts with him being the anti hero/criminal/psychopath. He does what he can to survive and he is also a cynic. Even when Ellie reveals the secret that she is immune, he is still skeptical about it. The fact that he continues to protect her is a combination of needing to get what he wants and a moral obligation to Tes after she dies (her death has to count for something). During his journey, though, his relationship with Ellie sparks back to life the loss of his daughter, the need to protect her. As they travel together he feels the need to go to extremes to protect her, thinking, slowly but surely, that he can't let another girl die under his care. He reaches the phase of the hero because he sacrifices his morality for a person, now, instead of himself and his need to survive in a world gone mad.

 

What makes the story incredible is that Naughty Dog is not satisfied with just getting Joel from an anti hero to a hero so that we can resonate through his suffering in order to justify his actions. They go deeper into the human psyche and make Joel give in to his own demons and his flaws in the end.

 

Joel acting egotistical, in the end, is a prime example of him being -actually- human. He gives in to his flaws, as many of us do, because he is weak. That is why he can't reveal the truth to Ellie, he is ashamed or afraid that he will lose everything he fought for (Ellie, that is, and his "daughter" for a second time). It is a proclamation of what humans are or can be. Not a movie hero. Not someone who gets redeemed. Just a plain old human losing against his demons, still thinking that he is doing it for the right reasons. Joel could very well be the first ancient greek tragedy protagonist we ever had.

 

It is not about right or wrong. It is about how humanity is always balanced between being powerless and powerfull.

 

You can't get more human than that.

[Smitty]

42 minutes ago, Gorf King said:

Not least, because it forces you to play as the selfish anti-hero, and also gives him and therefore you a very direct connection to a vulnerable human being whom your selfishness, you violence will 'protect'. This justifies the actions of what in any other game would be a villain. Even to the point of some claiming he's won a moral victory. It's a great narrative for a video game, because it makes you play the bad guy and paints the hero as the villain.

 

Not that Marlene isn't an absolute cunt, because she evidently is. But she's definitely the Heroic one, and the one with a strong moral code. That's the one you usually play, not the other psycho.

 

Yes! Yes. 

 

I remember having a revelation during a tense moment creeping around, wondering where the enemies were. Wait a second....what does this look like from their point of view? Am I the baddie? 

 

I'd been thinking of these people as callous people who don't hesitate to kill...but neither does the character i'm playing. I've seen them only as threats, and not as people. 

 

Again, it's a meditation on how we 'other' our enemies. We justify our own actions by reference to our morality, and cast all opponents having none - because that helps us to survive. We just want to survive but our enemies, well, they're brutal. They won't show us mercy. 

 

So we mustn't show them any. Humans almost always dehumanise their enemies. And you can see that playing out right here in this thread: everyone but Joel and Ellie is 'scum', 'savages', 'not worth saving'.

 

Spec Ops: The Line is a whole game based on ideas like this. About not understanding the enemy. About shooting first. About not really understanding what's going on, but being forced to work with a partial picture of the situation. About not realising that you're the villain in someone else's story.

[nakamura]

On a side note, i really loved the gameplay in this. Gunplay is perfect, melee is visceral and it feels brutal, like you are in a real fight for your life. One error is costly and the whole stealth/cover system is implemented superbly. 

[Gorf King]

11 minutes ago, Talk Show Host said:

Joel's journey starts as him being the anti hero/criminal/psychopath.

[...]

You can't get more human than that.

 

If you added 'and ends' into that first sentence, I'd agree. What's interesting is why he might be considered a 'hero', even though he doesn't do anything different from any of the 'bad guys' in the game, except survive it. Except for the paedeophile, obvs, all they seem to do is to want to survive and put food on their families' tables. He's only a 'hero' because you happen to play him. So they're all heroes, apart from that Fireflies bunch with their impractical thoughts for saving humankind and not just hunkering down in a bunker till we all die out, like proper heroes do.

 

Angel's thing about walking in other people's shoes, if applied to everyone in the game, would likely show Joel as a monster. But of course, we never actually do that - that's the odd thing about that phrase. We only ever walk in our own. Or, in this case, in Joel's (and occasionally Ellie's).

[layten]

I was umming and arring over bothering to replace my PS4 that got killed by the HDR firmware update. Going to have to buy a Pro after seeing this news.

[Smitty]

3 minutes ago, Cutter said:

Dude why so much negativity?

 

I did need to add it. Isn't it better to call you out than neg you?

 

Anyway this will be special. First time I ever blubbed at a game.

 

How is this negativity? Can you think of another game which has inspired these kinds of debates? It's a rare thing.

 

The arguments i've been making here are nothing to do with the quality of TLOU, they've been about the opinions people hold about the story. Nothing in what I've said has been a judgement about the game.

 

But let me give you my two cents on TLOU.

 

It has its problems, but overall I think TLOU is a great game. One of the best.

 

People may sometimes get the wrong impression but that's because I am able to hold multiple positions on games/films/books etc at the same time. 

 

I can see the positives in TLOU, but I can see the negative too. I feel like you don't really get down to the heart of what makes games tick - good or bad - until you can talk about what games get wrong. So i've always been hostile to the 'this thread is only for praise' vibe you sometimes get in certain threads because that drastically reduces the number of interesting things you can write about a game. 

 

It cripples our ability to really understand games and game mechanics. That's why i get pretty bored of just effusive praise, especially effusive praise that is offered without much detail or justification. Because once everyone's said how much they love about game, what has been learnt? Why are the good parts good? Why are the bad parts bad?

 

The great discussions we've had about games often come about through disagreements, through criticism. 

 

Anyway, that's all irrelevant really.  

[Gorf King]

42 minutes ago, nakamura said:

On a side note, i really loved the gameplay in this. Gunplay is perfect, melee is visceral and it feels brutal, like you are in a real fight for your life. One error is costly and the whole stealth/cover system is implemented superbly. 

 

Yup, I had a few worries over this before the game came out. The world needed to be grim, the violence something appalling, for the narrative to work. How can you do that with great gunplay that feels enjoyable? It's not a perfect solution, but the graphic brutality of the kills, along with your own vulnerability and the forced lack of precision in the shooting make it work.

 

Those qualities force you to try to avoid cover, to use stealth, but it's so easily broken it often descends into chaos and leaves you short of ammo and scrabbling around in panic for that brick you saw earlier. You often just about survive an encounter with no ammo, little health, bloodied and just dreading the possibility of there being another guy round the next corner, or in the next town. Scrabbling for resources rarely felt as vital as it does in this. Avoiding fights never felt as necessary in what is, after all, a shooter. I thought the combat mechanics were masterfully judged and they're a better fit for this than they are for something like the Uncharted series.

[Talk Show Host]

14 minutes ago, Gorf King said:

 

If you added 'and ends' into that first sentence, I'd agree. What's interesting is why he might be considered a 'hero', even though he doesn't do anything different from any of the 'bad guys' in the game, except survive it. Except for the paedeophile, obvs, all they seem to do is to want to survive and put food on their families' tables. He's only a 'hero' because you happen to play him. So they're all heroes, apart from that Fireflies bunch with their impractical thoughts for saving humankind and not just hunkering down in a bunker will we all die out like proper heroes do.

 

Angel's thing about walking in other people's shoes, if applied to everyone in the game, would likely show Joel as a monster. But of course, we never actually do that - that's the odd thing about that phrase. We only ever walk in our own. Or, in this case, in Joel's (and occasionally Ellie's).

 

He transforms to a hero for a brief moment because he now sacrifices his morality for a higher goal: to protect someone. But as his journey unfolds his demons prove stronger and that is why he can't be redeemed. In the end he doesn't -simply- become an anti hero because his morality is essentially destroyed. He reaches another level where morality does not play a part: tragedy. He becomes a tool of his own demons or fate and he operates above morality because he accepts his human nature, which shelters both good and evil. His choice is not about morality, in the end, that is why he can't be a hero or anti hero.

 

He loses the fight with himself and that is what makes him a tragic figure and, of course, human.

[Smitty]

'As the world fell, each of us in our own way was broken' 

 

- Mad Max, Fury Road

[angel]

He was mad though.

[Anne Summers]

I enjoyed this, but not hugely excited by the idea of a sequel. I came to it late, having heard a lot about how it was a classic. Burned through it in a couple of days and remember thinking "Is that it?" - It was great while it lasted but looking back a few years later I can only actually remember a few set pieces - giraffes, the QTE (or whatever those things were called) battle in the burning building, and the ending. Some great gaming moments definitely but it just seemed a bit lacking in content overall. 

 

The story was done brilliantly I thought but I came away a bit unsure about what I was meant to think about Joel's actions. The game didn't seem to explore the moral ambiguity of his character. I am sure the point is supposed to be that it leaves us to that ourselves.  I get the point of games where the you actually have some say over the outcome of the story, through your decisions as a player, pulling this kind of stunt. But in a game like this where you are essentially playing through a set-in-stone narrative, it's nice when things are stated a bit more explicitly. 

[Down by Law]

15 minutes ago, Gorf King said:

 

Yup, I had a few worries over this before the game came out. The world needed to be grim, the violence something appalling, for the narrative to work. How can you do that with great gunplay that feels enjoyable? It's not a perfect solution, but the graphic brutality of the kills, along with your own vulnerability and the forced lack of precision in the shooting make it work.

 

 

The very first guy you come across, the one trapped and begging for death, really shocked me how graphic it was. The clear entry wound, the chunks of head flying off, the blood running down the face. I'd just got my PS3, so going from the light Uncharted trilogy to Manhunt-esque levels of brutality was a bit of an eye opener to say the least. And like you say, it had to be to convey the kind of utter grim circumstances the world is in.

[angel]

21 minutes ago, Anne Summers said:

I enjoyed this, but not hugely excited by the idea of a sequel. I came to it late, having heard a lot about how it was a classic. Burned through it in a couple of days and remember thinking "Is that it?" - It was great while it lasted but looking back a few years later I can only actually remember a few set pieces - giraffes, the QTE (or whatever those things were called) battle in the burning building, and the ending. Some great gaming moments definitely but it just seemed a bit lacking in content overall. 

 

The story was done brilliantly I thought but I came away a bit unsure about what I was meant to think about Joel's actions. The game didn't seem to explore the moral ambiguity of his character. I am sure the point is supposed to be that it leaves us to that ourselves.  I get the point of games where the you actually have some say over the outcome of the story, through your decisions as a player, pulling this kind of stunt. But in a game like this where you are essentially playing through a set-in-stone narrative, it's nice when things are stated a bit more explicitly. 

 

You are properly bonkers sometimes.

[Pob]

Was trying to think what would turn Ellie into a cold-hearted killer and can only think that she had a child of her own in the intervening years and something happened to him (I reckon it'd be a him) - probably the Fireflies taking him.

[Anne Summers]

6 minutes ago, angel said:

 

You are properly bonkers sometimes.

Another thing might have been that I came to it shortly after playing some truly epic games which defined the last five years or whatever of gaming for me - Dark Souls and Fallout 3/NV mainly, and from the hype I was kind of thinking it would be in that sort of league (though a totally different game obviously) and I didn't think it quite lived up to the "best of the best" of the last gen. Definitely a special game, just a bit limited in what it did exceptionally well (storyline and cinematics mainly), and merely above average in most other areas (stealth, combat, exploration etc).