cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/52327207
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2026
174 points (97.8% liked)
Gaming
8263 readers
1159 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Was it really that good? It was just jump scares and ego-gun-tripping...mixed with decent voice acting...
It's good historically. Publishers and developers didn't really care much about story in their games before then (2013). "Video Game story" was often horribly bad, like porn acting; but more often it was just forgettable. Like mandatory lubricant to keep the gameplay going, rather than a feature to make good. Think, Far Cry 3, Borderlands 2, Dishonored, etc. They're ok, but they don't make you really "feel" something. Mostly you just go around killing everything until it's done. Heck, speaking of which, even Doom Eternal (2020) has a coherent storyline and lore.
After The Last of Us, publishers suddenly realised that people actually really like it when their videogames have good stories, that make sense narratively, have twists, low plot holes, emotional investment and climax, etc. Now we have even better stories like Ghost of Tsushima, Expedition 33, Baldur's Gate 3, etc.
It's a bit dated now, but 13 years ago gaming was very different. It's actually expected nowadays for games to have a reasonably good story. Today, I would probably recommend the TV show instead for most people, or maybe a Let's Play.
You're conclusion isn't wrong but you're giving it credit for the wrong things. All of those elements were present in games that came long before, TLOU was just a lot more marketable.
The story-first approach made you feel in control of a zombie movie during peak zombie mania. You just binged The Walking Dead, what if you could play an episode...
In that sense, you're right that its success opened up a whole new market that we all benefit from. I knew so many people whose game libraries were like NBA 2k 2011, NBA 2k 2012, and The Last Of Us. It made a lot of non-hobbyists realize that games can be art.
It's a good game that would have earned a place in video game history regardless BUT it wasn't particularly innovative. It just did what it did very well
Your comment feels like it's trying to simultaneously agree with me and vaguely correct me at the same time. I'm not really sure what to make of it.
The Last of Us had the best story in gaming in quite a while. That's my opinion, backed up by the huge amount of media coverage and acclaim at the time. Yes, other games had stories in them, but they mostly sucked. They don't suck as much anymore, because that game made publishers and developers and players care more. That's my point.
I didn't mean to come off as hostile because yes, I do agree with your conclusion that TLOU was a big deal for games. It was an accessible game that did all of the things you mentioned extremely well...but it wasn't the first to do any of them.
And highlighting just those games ignores the plethora with great stories and acting that just just didn't click with the mainstream. Try pitching a space opera to the average person in 2013...now try a zombie apocalypse. It got a boost from being in the right place at the right time.
I'm not insulting the game at all but that's like saying Bob Marley was the first to do reggae.
Half Life (1998) was considered revolutionary for putting all its cut scenes in game and you had to press E to listen to characters.
Final Fantasy 6 (1994) and 7 (1997) were considered masterpieces of storytelling
Myst was 1993
Sid Meier was making story based games in the mid 80s.
What's your point?
You said
My reply gives counter-examples
And you said
You're still being vague. I assume you're implying that the existence of games like Final Fantasy 7 (1997) having a good story for it's time, means that no other game from then on can have a story that's revolutionary for it's time? It's nonsensical. Technology improves, storywriting gets better, game mechanics get woven into the narrative.
Good stories in games back then were the exception, not the norm. Listing a few exceptions doesn't counter anything.
I played it about a year ago. I was pleasantly surprised. It's very well-done for it's time. It's a bit dated now but not in a bad way. I'd recommend it if you like horror and/or adventure games.
When I played the original back on PS3, I would definitely say it's that good. To me, it did feel like it was the game making the generational leap. It's not so noticeable these days now that technology and game design has advanced so much, but my first playthrough was wonderful.
As a note: I haven't played the sequels, the remasters on modern consoles, or watched the TV show.
Yes.
I think it depends a lot on how much you like serious stories in your video games. I prefer lighthearted games so I didn't even make it through the first one, but my best friend loves them.