Jump to content

Talk:The Last of Us

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.9.43.75 (talk) at 02:42, 6 July 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... (your reason here)

The game is currently in development and Content will be added to the page as soon as it is available, i am still adding more detail to it as we speak. This game has now been announced and the wiki page should be created for it. --Fluffyman24 (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Setting

I changed the setting to Pittsburgh due to many internet reports and photos. The poster at the top of the article even shows the Pittsburgh skyline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikrman (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 29th

The citation for the release date merely says Late 2012-Early 2013, not October 29th as we have on the page. Unless this has been confirmed elsewhere it should be changed. 94.192.45.239 (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24 Star Joins The Last of Us Cast

24's actor, Annie Wersching joined the The Last of Us cast

(Source: http://www.vg247.com/2012/04/28/24s-annie-wersching-joins-the-last-of-us-cast/)

She probably play as Ellie's mother, or either Joel's wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.255.54 (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survival horror?

After i watched Gameplayvideos i realy doubed that it is Surival Horror... so i looked in the internet and dont find any official statemant that the game should be a surival horror game ... So where is the source the game should be a surival horror game ...--94.219.206.246 (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A dozens of others but these have it even in urls. --Niemti (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Alert

Being that the game hasn't been released yet, the Plot section is a little too extensive. I'm not going to read it and I'm sure there's more out there like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.159.37 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being that the game comes out tomorrow... Grow up. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, that section is like a freakin' novel... Be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.159.37 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does give away the entire story of the game including the dramatic finish, which would ruin the game for anyone who wants to be surprised by the storyline as they play the game. Also, on that finish, Joel does find evidence at the hospital that the Fire Flies have tried and failed to create a vaccine from people that are immune, but he lies by saying that they had given up on ever finding a cure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.2.51 (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to spoil the ending of a game/movie/book, you just don't look it up in an encyclopedia. It's as simple as that, really. :/ 91.60.242.198 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bias concerning gamespot review

Someone has said the gamespot reviewer bashes non action FPS titles and had nothing to source it, grow up please wikipedia is not a place for your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.160.102 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of Us is not a FPS title. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future tense

Much of the article is still in the future tense (i'm especially thinking of "Gameplay" and "Development"). I'm not that involved in the game (I'd love to i just don't have a playstation), and i'm not a native english speaker. So i'm not going to attempt it, but someone should fix this. Amphicoelias (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ending Description a bit too definitive?

The description currently states that Ellie clearly sees through Joel's lies but it seems that's still up to interpretation. That's THE point of contention in every debate raging on the internet about the ending. Perhaps just a description of the scene would be more appropriate than giving an interpretation of it? Capeo (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i beleive theres an audio that can be found in the run up to the final rescue in which a doctor discusses the other twelve immune individuals, to Joel is not actually lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.211.8 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect location

The article states that they travel to Jackson County, Colorado for the dam. However, it's a fictional Jackson County in Wyoming. There are two primary pieces of evidence for this: 1) There are multiple signs for the Snake River and 2) there is a map that specifically states the dam is in Wyoming. I've made the change.Leshii (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Straley and Neil Druckmann

After Uncharted 2 and this, they still have no articles. Congratulations, Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now. Portillo (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 24 June 2013

TheKing012 (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

at 03:20, 24 June 2013, the following revision was made to the Wikipedia article pertaining to "The Last of Us":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Last_of_Us&diff=prev&oldid=561303751

as this is completely opinionated, I'm sending a request for it to be returned to it's original format.

along with that, there is a similar, misconstrued post added at the date 15:21, 24 June 2013 to the bottom of the page with the following revision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Last_of_Us&diff=prev&oldid=561372401

which also follows under an opinionated piece, as the head title for article wherein lies the original statement, was sensationalized and utilizes an out of context quote in order to mislead potential readers.

I second this. The original context was her not appreciating her likeness being used since she was already doing starring in another Sony game. She said nothing about them ripping her off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FE50:0:8524:88AF:4C67:D0B1:2BE9 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Half  Already done, half  Not done: The first diff was obvious vandalism and has been already been reverted. I don't see anything wrong with the second diff as all it does is clarify where Ellen Page's comments were made. As the section itself appears well-sourced I am not inclined to remove it through an edit request, although if you believe her comments should not be included in the article feel free to start a discussion here on the talk page to gain consensus for your view. BryanG (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Joel's lie still not quite correct

Joel wasn't lying when he said there were others like her. The surgeon's audio recording mentions Ellie is like "all previous case" in some regards, meaning they have had access to other immune people. His lie is that they just let them go and gave up looking for a cure. Capeo (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"April 28th. Marlene was right. The girl's infection is like nothing I've ever seen. The cause of her immunity is uncertain. As we've seen in all past cases, the antigenic titers of the patient's Cordyceps remain high in both the serum and the cerebrospinal fluid. Blood cultures taken from the patient rapidly grow Cordyceps in fungal-media in the lab... however white blood cell lines, including percentages and absolute-counts, are completely normal. There is no elevation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and an MRI of the brain shows no evidence of fungal-growth in the limbic regions, which would normally accompany the prodrome of aggression in infected patients. We must find a way to replicate this state under laboratory conditions. We're about to hit a milestone in human history equal to the discovery of penicillin. After years of wandering in circles we're about to come home, make a difference, and bring the human race back in control of its own destiny. All of our sacrifices and the hundreds of men and women who've bled for this cause, or worse, will not be in vain." - the recording in question. The recording correlates Ellie's samples with those of past cases, but nowhere mentions that those past cases were immune. It also clearly states that Ellie's condition is, if not one of a kind, at least the first instance seen by this surgeon, and presumably the first instance observed by the Fireflies as well. While that may refer to Ellie's specific condition (immunity by a certain method), "The girl's infection is like nothing I've ever seen. The cause of her immunity is uncertain." and the direct reference "which would normally accompany ... aggression in infected patients" imply that the other cases were infected, not immune. 138.25.2.141 (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This game can also be defined as a third person shooter.

There are several sections in the game where you are not able to progress unless you kill every enemy using guns in that specific area. I will add that genre tag as soon as I am able. 174.134.120.15 (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objections? Shooter doesn't describe the game overall but it certainly is ingrained in the design. 174.134.120.15 (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a zombie video game

Why is the game being called a zombie video game? The Infected are not zombies since they were always alive. Also the main enemies in the game are humans. Not only that Naughty Dog itself says the game is not a zombie video game. The game is being mislabeled. Please remove the zombie video game tag. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a distinct lack of Haitian myths there. /sarcasm --Niemti (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a particular game is defined as a zombie video game, it means the enemies in the game are undead creatures only. Even World of Warcraft contains zombies as enemies but have you ever heard of it being called a zombie game? Absolutely not since it contains many enemies besides the undead. Also the Infected were always alive. Also if you're the term zombie in the sense of real world or Haitian myths you should know that the were actually always alive but their thinking power is dumbed down using some intoxicant powder or medicine but they never attack humans or eat their flesh. However the Infected lose their mind due to the Cordyceps fungus but still contain some of their thinking ability and their smelling and hearing senses are highly accurate. It can easily be seen that the Infected are very different from zombies. Not only that the actual main enemies of the game are humans. Any way you take it the game is not a zombie video game. Also when Naughty Dog, the develepores of the itself says that the game is not a zombie video game who are we to label it as a zombie video game. I request again to remove the zombie video game tag. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, even Left4Dead zombies are alive. Also you misinterpreted what they say about it being not a zombie game but one about "a father-daughter-like relationship" - Wikipedia has no category "Father-daughter-like relationship games". Oh, and other humans are enemies, and usually more dangerous than zombies, in most zombie fiction. --Niemti (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed out the part about Naughty Dog saying it's not a zombie video game. The Last of Us has no zombies and the official term for the infected enemies is The Infected. Cordyceps fungus infects only insects in real world. They have been termed as zombies by the media but scientists never call them zombies since they retain much of their thinking skills. Also have you even seen the game? Left4Dead is very different from The Last of Us. Also I request you to please read this carefully. Human enmies are more common than the Infected in The Last of Us. Also Left 4 Dead has no human enemies. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed out the part about me addressing that part. So I'll repeat myself, and also eleaborate: they meant the game's about "a father-daughter-like relationship" and not about the zombies (like The Walking Dead is a soap opera full of silly melodrama, and isn't actually about zombies, they're a background - actually even Romero after the original LotLD always pushes some "social commentary" bullshit using zombies only as an allegory for this or that). Oh, and the (living) zombies in L4D are "The Infected" too. As for being controlled by an infection - guess why zombie computers are called so? --Niemti (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're comparing computers to living biological beings? What foolishness? Also note this there are three types of Infected in The last of Us. The least infected of them still retain their humanity and they will mostly never attack you atleast unyil you attack them. This proves that they still retain much of their sanity and thinking capacity. They are not even near to zombies.They are still alive and retain most of their sanity. On the other hand zombies do not retain their thinking process and will attack humans on sight. But there are some Infected who never attack humans. Instead they will go hide in a dark place to protect themselves. The parasitic fungus Cordyceps is the reason reaponsible because of which they start losing their mind over a long period of time. According to the game this peiod of time ranges from months to years. It can easily seen Infected are not zombies because they are still zombies. Tell me will you call a Werewolf a Zombie? KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not me, but computer scientists did. I don't know whoever told you a zombie must be dumb or insane (take for example Deadheads (film), are they "not zombies" according to you beccause they don't fit your definition?). Btw, a trivia: the original 'zombies' of Romero were ghouls, and they were called ghouls. It was only after the films was made someone made a connection to the zombies of Haiti, and Zombie was actually first a name of African deity, before this word changed its meaning many many times, and it's still evolving. Also: yes, there are werewolf zombies. There are zombie dogs too (also, real ones). In some fiction, there are zombie everything (like in The Rising (Keene novel), and they're intelligent too, just evil). You can't really define a term "zombie", but I can present you tons of RS referring to this game as a zombie game. And that's all. --Niemti (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2013 (

That zombie ant or zombie computer is just name calling. Like when I say not even a zombie is dumb or insane to give such worthless, unreliable arguments like Niemti has. You should know better than to call a crappy indie movie as a RS. I'm talking about the real werewolves. Not some werewolves revived from plague. I am talking about werewolves infected by other werewolves and not a plague that raises them from the dead. Also put that aside will you call Dracula a zombie? That will be the stupidest thing evet. Same way vampires and werwolves are not zombies. Next time think before embarrising yourself. That was barely anything at all. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk to me about me in third person. The RS are articles about The Last of Us (so obviously), "embarrising" is not a real word, yawn, bye. --Niemti (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can be seen you don't have any manners or respect towards others. Still I have recently seen on Google that some video game news websites have called it not your typical zombie game. That means ofcourse they're calling it a zombie game. So I think I should let go of this. But still I advise you to improve your behavior Niemti or other editors will be as uncooperative towards you as you are. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pointless listing of other games to achieve a similar level of popularity/achievmeent for Playstation and in that pointless list Batman: Arkham City alone is linked. This is very typical of the franchise and it's fans shady online operations to generating faux authority. Someone with privs should remove that link at the very least, ideally the whole irrelevant listing of other games, and if possible, tag Arkham City material. New game in the series is coming out and the shady practices are starting again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.208.126 (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplayer : European censorship?

According to this article http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2013/06/the_last_of_us_lacks_multiplayer_dismemberments_in_europe there are no dismemberments in the European version of the game. Is it worth adding this bit of info to the main article?--Gaunt (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autosave issue

At the moment, the article has an entire paragraph devoted to an autosave issue that occurred on the release day. It was quickly fixed and seems to have left no lasting impression. In hindsight, I'd argue it's fairly irrelevant in an encyclopedic article which aims to give the reader an overview of the game, by necessity concentrating on the most important information. It's not that bugs can't ever be relevant, but many games have bugs and in order for them to merit inclusion it seems to me like they'd have to actually affect how the game is seen in the long run. Remove? /Julle (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - remove the Autosave whole section and perhaps just mention it very briefly elsewhere.--Gaunt (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe include a section about the various technical issues this game has suffered, including the auto save that causes a lot of people to lose hours of gameplay on the first day the game was available.174.134.120.15 (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this stupid sub-section title so many times, wonder who's putting it back up. --Niemti (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was me putting it back the entire time. I wonder why you never noticed that. Also I'm wondering why you're removing it just because it was quickly fixed? The paragraph is reliably sourced. Haven't you heard about the Diablo III server issues? Agreed that spawned a longer period of time but both Diablo III and The Last of Us server issues caused major problems to players. It's not about the period of time but the impact and effect of it. Also why are you adding back the Comics section to the Release section? Don't you know that the comics started being published much earlier than the release of the game? You can't decide which section should stay or not. Only a consensus can. I think there should be a proper consensus by all editors who want to improve the quality of the article. You should have stareted a discussion much earlier instead of edit warring Niemti. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one has claimed it wasn't properly sourced, only that it doesn't merit inclusion in an article which has to pick and choose regarding what information to keep. If we wrote a book about the game, it should absolutely be mentioned. The period of time is rather central to whether the problem had a lasting impact. /Julle (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'll like to say that I don't have much problem with the autosave issue not having it's own section. I only have a major problem with it being completely removed from the article. This issue might not be very significant but is significant enough to be mentioned in this article. I don't have any problem with it being briefly mentioned or merged in other sections. I request you to instead of completely removing it please just briefly mention about it in the Development or Release section. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that it merits mentioning (I'm not really convinced about that either, but it doesn't affect the article negatively the same way as a whole paragraph does). I've tried to condense the most important parts of the paragraph into one sentence. Feel free to rephrase it if you have better suggestions. /Julle (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And i wonder why you never noticed "Autosave issues" is not a proper section in video game articles. --Niemti (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know with what else name I should call an autosave issue as. Maybe Server issues would have been a better title. Also the issue was a major issue no matter how short it was. It affected thousands of players who pirchased the game on launch day. Additionaly I'll like you to know that one more technical issue has been identified in the game. It has been revealed that the game contains hidden phone sex numbers. According to Naughty Dog, they had been accidentaly inserted in the game. However a patch will be released to fix this. Maybe you could add it along with the autosave issue. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing the name of the Rendezvous point with fireflies - Mass capitol

There's controversial opinions on whether should the names of key locations in the game's story be added to the plot section of the article. Pessimist2006 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My today's edit, in which I included the name of the meet up place between main heroes and fireflies group - was reverted by a user, who before reverting it should've addressed it at talkpage, according to Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing_and_discussion policies. Considering I might obviously object to it. Now, why should it be included? Well, why not? It's more relevant than an ambivalent name "drop off point", those who played the game would know that the Rendezvous point's location was clear from the beginning - the leader of the fireflies told it to the main heroes and that other group of fireflies are gonna be waiting for them there, with the girl Ellen. So yeah, I think it wouldn't hurt to be precise and direct when it comes to this. The plot in this particular article doesn't need to be vague, and free from highlights of key names in the story. It also would help to better understand it, if it had some memorable names of locations, since there were lots of them. If I didn't learn about the story by myself I wouldn't recognize, when shown a clip from the game, approximately what part I'm seeing on a YouTube video about the game's story. So I think it'd be helpful to include the name of an important location for the main heroes (there are like several chapters of their route to Mass Capitol and how they need to get to it) and where quite an important character - Tess, dies. Pessimist2006 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Massachusetts State House, not the Capitol. The game begins in Massachusetts, and the location's name can be seen above the entrance shortly before Tess dies. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 18:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're not a cross-reference system for Youtube watching. It being the location Tess dies does not make the location relevant, her death is not tied to the building, if she died on the street, in a subway, on a bus, the major point would still be that she died. WP: BRD, says you made a bold edit, you were reverted with 3 reasons, and you've opened a discussion, why none of those 3 reasons didn't make sense to you I don't know, but considering you didn't even realize you had the wrong building I question how important you really think it must be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During the ingame play, the main heroes keep calling it "Capitol", this is where they were heading. As soon as they are near it, Joel exclaims: "Home stretch" in an anticipation to finally reach their rendezvous point. It's relevant, because
  • Route to US Capitol is like 1/6th of the game's narration
  • That's where main heroes were told to deliver the girl
  • That's where Joel learned that fireflies who've been waiting for them are gone (hence followed change of Plan/twist in the plot's direction)

Tess dying there is relevant to the location because she did this solely to buy them some time to escape from the building, otherwise they had a higher chance of being caught by the approaching soldiers. So your subjective reason that it wouldn't matter if it happened in the street doesn't suit up to what writers of the game put behind this particular part of story, so yeah, I wouldn't call the names of the Mass Capitol or the Bridge unimportant to the game story, since they're about destinations that PS3 players have to reach throughout several chapters. Pessimist2006 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you pause that video you added at 3:58, the sign clearly says (though backwards) "MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE". It doesn't matter what they call it. I am in complete agreement with Darkwarriorblake, but I want to make sure you're aware that this is not the US Capitol building. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, no need to be so ... Okay, so I mixed up the names a bit, still doesn't justify the deletion, plot should be informative. Pessimist2006 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The plot is already informative. The plot also needs to be clear, concise, and preferably not larger than 700 words (773 at present). It currently says "The trio fight their way out of the quarantine zone to the drop-off point..." which is clear and concise already. Adding the location of the drop-off point is unimportant to the overall plot summary. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several drop off points, why not just name them to avoid possible confusion? Most players associate the place/building with the word "Capitol", since it's being called that way in the game. A user, who's not familiar with the story would better "get" what this Capitol is about - a rendezvous point. Otherwise he'd have hard time understanding what part of the game featured Capitol if he stumbles upon it in the comments or somewhere else. It's just you're being overly sensitive to the inclusion of the name of the major destination in the beginning of the Last of Us story. Pessimist2006 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, "overly sensitive". From the guy who went back to change his US Capitol comments in the hope that people who come to comment wouldn't notice that he had the wrong building in the first place. You can't speak for "most players" unless you've got a reliable source to back it up - I associated the place with "drop Ellie off here", not "Capitol", and certainly not "US Capitol" as you earlier claimed. Anyone who reads the plot summary here before playing TLoU to familiarize themselves with the story is, in my humble opinion, a complete moron (and has spoiled it for themselves anyway). Anyone who wants excessive detail can use YouTube or the Last of Us Wikia. Sounds like you're being "overly sensitive" to discussion, especially when you removed my response above. I have nothing else to add to this. Let's see where your RfC goes. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 20:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I provided reasons above why saying the name of the rendezvous point isn't unnecessary. It's not high importance, but it's not low either. Also, the link you gave me supposedly deleting your reply - doesn't indicate it. Care to point it out for me? I don't remember deleting any of your replies here. Pessimist2006 (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the edit summary - the section outlined in yellow, with the subtraction symbols next to it. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... I express my sadness over this oversight, though good thing you noticed it right away and I'm sure it was a no big deal/didn't require much energy for/from you to push the button and paste your reply again. Pessimist2006 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The location is unimportant, that things happen there Pessimist does not make the place itself important, all that matters is it is the drop off point, that is the important part to take away from the story. You have failed to explain why the drop off point being a bus stop, a landfill or a sewer would make it being the drop off point or the place of Tess's death less important. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan North

He plays the voice of David in the game, why is this not mentioned? 86.9.43.75 (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Last_of_Us&oldid=563054033"