CheatMasters: "Based on what can be seen off trailers and demos, The Last of Us is surely shaping up to be one of the best titles to come out this summer. It features all the elements of a classic post apocalyptic film – zombie-like infested, the ruins of the civilized world, scarce resources – and it is also able to invoke emotions as relationships form and you feel the weight of the hopeless situation on your shoulders. The Last of Us is a thinking man’s survival horror game, but it still offers up a lot so that other gamers may still be able to find enjoyment out of this title. Regardless, The Last of Us will definitely not be the last of the intelligent horror game, but it can definitely belong up there among the best of them."
The story in part 3 of Sony Interactive Entertainment and Naughty Dog's The Last of Us series may explore a "congregation of immune people."
Former Naughty Dog artist Gabriel Betancourt explains why the "sweet spot" for game teams is under 200 people and how AAA "factories" kill creativity.
There’s definitely some truth to this. When teams get too large, coordination starts to outweigh creativity—layers of approval, risk aversion, and tight deadlines can turn bold ideas into “safe” ones. Keeping a team under ~200 people sounds ideal for maintaining clear communication and a shared vision. That said, massive AAA projects also come with huge technical demands and expectations, so scaling up isn’t always avoidable. The real challenge is figuring out how to keep that small-team creativity alive inside big studio structures.
More than that, it's logistically untenable. Inevitably, when teams get too large, how do you keep tabs on accountability? I suspect this massive team size is a consequence of the perfectionism streak Naughty Dog has.
I wish we could have so many people working on something and it turns out great because I'm all for collaboration in spirit - the problem is too many people as part of the larger team and smaller units. Suppose for example that you have too many people in the art department; you will very often come up against fiercely competing visions for how things should look. That competitive vision will cause friction between team members, team doesn't work as a unit, the back and forth can further delay parts that the other departments are waiting for, etc etc.
A 200-person team says, to me, that we need to scale back game development. Even if it means we go back to PS2 era costs and scale, why not? Those games are still great fun, the budgets were in check, and you could literally break the 200-man team into like 10 20-man teams working on different projects.
The Last of Us Part I PS5 review covering visuals, combat feel, accessibility, performance modes, and whether it is really worth the asking price of $69.99.
i find it fuuny how every preview say something different about the last of us genre
some say
"it's survival horror"
and other's say
"it's survival Action"
it seems like ND is making a game that can cross both Genre
to make a new Genre that Mix both
that's why "Arne Meyer" who work on The last Of Us
said this is his comment in Neogaf
**>>><<<if you treat this game as an action game or a survival horror game, rather than let the game teach you the "new" mechanics of this "new" genre, it game will be more difficult in an unsatisfying way. The game will teach you to think about combat differently, hard to do in a 30min+ demo, but that's a lot of what you see with the repeated deaths. The moment I tell someone - dont fall back to genre conventions for gameplay mechnaics, people start being far more successful in combat for this demo.
>>><<<***
http://www.neogaf.com/forum...