Nowadays, it seems like going anywhere near The Last of Us inspires a hotbed of hot takes, from folks calling its storytelling trite and its gameplay bland to those who boldly claim that it's the greatest thing to ever happen to video games as a medium. Are either of these views correct? I mean, that's perhaps up for debate, though I'd certainly argue that they're both hyperbolic.
However, with the HBO adaptation bringing home 8 Emmys and this new 'Part I' remake taking cues from Part II's gameplay and high-fidelity visuals, it's clear that the franchise has cultural staying power. What's most interesting to me, however, is how these two things have altered my opinion of the first game as a whole.
Despite the truncated length of the first season in comparison to the first game, there are certain changes and contextual additions that the HBO show makes to the story that I prefer. From certain details in character backstories and relationships to different nuances of the performances in comparison to their original actors, it's a case-by-case, scene-by-scene preference between the two for me.
That's not to imply that the game's story or performances are bad by any stretch; far from it. I suppose that's just bound to be the case when a new team approaches the same story a decade later. The narrative and performances of 2013's The Last of Us are still incredibly strong and emotionally resonant, well deserving of the various praise and accolades it's accrued over the years.
The remake only amplifies that, with the original motion capture performances being replicated 1:1 in-game thanks to the updated in-house engine Naughty Dog used for Part II. It's incredibly impressive visually and captivating to watch, yet somehow still without feeling too 'uncanny valley'.
Weirdly enough, though, it's this remake's gameplay that gives me pause in showering it with praise. To be clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Part I just takes Part II's upgraded UI, animations, and certain gameplay features, like a more in-depth-looking workbench menu, and retroactively applies them to the original. The result is very impressive and fun to play around with; however, it's not quite enough to justify a full-price purchase without any kind of upgrade path with a copy of the PS4 remaster.
Regardless, Part I is still an incredibly solid package and its improvements to the original are all very impressive. Perhaps not enough to charge full-price but at this point, Sony is as Sony does. Should you play the remake over the PS4 remaster? That's up to you, of course, but if you're willing to put up with the objectively inferior visuals of the PS4 remaster, I would highly suggest you give that a chance instead.
8.5/10
However, with the HBO adaptation bringing home 8 Emmys and this new 'Part I' remake taking cues from Part II's gameplay and high-fidelity visuals, it's clear that the franchise has cultural staying power. What's most interesting to me, however, is how these two things have altered my opinion of the first game as a whole.
Despite the truncated length of the first season in comparison to the first game, there are certain changes and contextual additions that the HBO show makes to the story that I prefer. From certain details in character backstories and relationships to different nuances of the performances in comparison to their original actors, it's a case-by-case, scene-by-scene preference between the two for me.
That's not to imply that the game's story or performances are bad by any stretch; far from it. I suppose that's just bound to be the case when a new team approaches the same story a decade later. The narrative and performances of 2013's The Last of Us are still incredibly strong and emotionally resonant, well deserving of the various praise and accolades it's accrued over the years.
The remake only amplifies that, with the original motion capture performances being replicated 1:1 in-game thanks to the updated in-house engine Naughty Dog used for Part II. It's incredibly impressive visually and captivating to watch, yet somehow still without feeling too 'uncanny valley'.
Weirdly enough, though, it's this remake's gameplay that gives me pause in showering it with praise. To be clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Part I just takes Part II's upgraded UI, animations, and certain gameplay features, like a more in-depth-looking workbench menu, and retroactively applies them to the original. The result is very impressive and fun to play around with; however, it's not quite enough to justify a full-price purchase without any kind of upgrade path with a copy of the PS4 remaster.
Regardless, Part I is still an incredibly solid package and its improvements to the original are all very impressive. Perhaps not enough to charge full-price but at this point, Sony is as Sony does. Should you play the remake over the PS4 remaster? That's up to you, of course, but if you're willing to put up with the objectively inferior visuals of the PS4 remaster, I would highly suggest you give that a chance instead.
8.5/10