Court Docs Reveal Internal Xbox Review of The Last of Us Part 2, 'Sets New Bar We Hope to Achieve' - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 01 July 2021 / 5,086 Views
Court documents of the Epic Games v. Apple case have been published online and one offers a look into Microsoft's own internal review of Sony's PlayStation 4 exclusive, The Last of Us Part II. The internal Xbox review of the game was done by the Xbox Portfolio Team and was posted on ResetEra.
"This game sets a new bar for what we should hope to be able to achieve going into a new generation of consoles," reads the review.
"The Last of Us Part II is the exceedingly rare video game where what it accomplishes in moving forward the art narrative storytelling in video games as medium ultimately outweighs or not everyone 'likes' it or even if everyone has 'fun' playing it," reads the review. "That said we loved it, had a great time playing it, and find ourselves still thinking about its characters and stories even after finishing the playthrough."
While the Xbox Portfolio Team praised the game for raising the bar they did have some criticisms. They weren't a fan of the gunplay combat and the inventory system.
"Naughty Dog still can't seem to make decent gun combat in any of their games, and this one is no exception. Luckily for them its fits with the game's overall theme and pushes the player toward using stealth over head-on.
"One big gripe about the moment-to-moment gameplay was really with the game's inventory system. The inputs for weapon switching are all located on the d-pad, and there was no 'quick switch' between current and previous weapons. So, unless you've got an additional thumb on your left hand, then you're going to have to take your thumb off the movement controls on the left stick in order to switch weapons, which was notably frustrating during the more frenetic combat sequences."
The reviewers did add that the visuals and the details in the world are the best-in-class through the majority of The Last of Us Part II.
"The visual quality and attention to detail in The Last of Us Part II is absolutely best-in-class in basically every area, and the overall presentation is significantly ahead of any-thing that other teams have been producing on console and PC.
"We were frequently stunned by the quality of the game's visuals, something that sadly seldom happens these days. It's even more impressive considering that game feature two separate player characters with different group of allies, in different locations, along with flashback sequences taking place years before. It features a shockingly wide variety of environments, weather, and day cycles in locations raging from Wyoming to California.
The Last of Us Part II is available now on the PlayStation 4.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel dedicated to gaming Let's Plays and tutorials. You can contact the author at wdangelo@vgchartz.com or on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Technically yes, but for the love of god Microsoft get some good writers.
Yes, a good story and writing is just as important. Graphics can only do so much.
Guy is a fool. Gunplay was amazing and the most visceral shooter I have played. The damage models and sounds, coupled with the animation and graphics is better than any shooter.
On a technical level, TLoU2 excels, most certainly.
Well if you want that to your new gen you have to remember that was ND last gen, so whatever they do this gen will be above that. I disagree with their ND never made a good gunplay, just because it doesn't play like the titles they develop in house doesn't mean they are bed (or that you should be able to quickly change weapons as that doesn't even make much sense).
It's an internal opinion piece so they can say what they want. That said I think the shooting mechanics are brilliant and was notably better than anything Xbox offered during this last gen. I really miss the 360 era for that. What confuses me is the whole part of needing an additional thumb?!?! This is totally a reflex issue. You can switch weapons and have your thumb back on the thumb stick in roughly a quarter of a second. They are making it sound like it takes over a second to move your thumbs off the analogue stick to press a button and then return your thumb to aim. It's almost like that assessment was made by a non-gamer or someone observing controller input in slow motion.
I know it is an internal OP, and that they can say what they want. But let's say that if they are targeting TLOU2, they are targeting at the past and not the future so they will still be outpaced by them. And my point in gunplay is just that, I don't remember professional reviewers complaining about ALL ND's games to have poor gunplay, but I can certainly understand it is not to the liking of the team doing the internal review.
I don't think it will result in them being out paced by them. Actually developer study games internally to simply learn about game mechanics. GTA San Andreas and Resident Evil 4 are good example of games that were reviewed long after release. Mass Effect 2 (2010) was a result of a lot of case studies perform on RE4 (2005) to figure out how to improve the shooting mechanics over Mass Effect 1 (2007). The result of that actually improved Mass Effect 2 in to being one of their highest reviewed and best selling BioWare games, selling over 3 million more than the original title.
Internal reviews of games absolutely do improve the development of4 games from a developers point of view. Mass Effect 2 influence from Resident Evil 4 is not only telling, the results very clearly spoke for itself.
Shooter people just don't get that not every game is a shooter, even if there are guns involved. TLOU is going for a realistic feel, not ease of use. You're in a real situation, frantic and panicking. You don't just "push d-pad" when you're being shot at or rushed by monsters and your guns are hanging from your backpack or whatever. You have make tactical choices, do I have time to grab another gun before the thing is at your throat, or should I try and get some distance. Could you imagine how boring the TLOU experience would be if you just walked around invincible and gunned down everything on screen Doom style? Plenty of those games around if that's your thing.
Inspiration can come even from the competition. Dint they have a job listing that even on the description it said to make a horizon zero dawn copy? Thats was a while ago and nothing came from it or not yet. Takes more than just inspiration to make something good.
Well their temporary exclusive with Tomb Raider was to fight against UC4 as well (even if UC4 have a bad gunplay kkkkkk, do they consider TR gunplay great?)
This isn't surprising, I recall hearing Phil say they wanted more narrative driven games or something along those lines and they've set themselves up nicely to deliver on all fronts with all the new studios. Gears is still one of the most solid 3rd person shooters in terms of gunplay IMO
gears is a cover based shooter though which TLOU shouldn't try to be.
" Luckily for them its fits with the game's overall theme and pushes the player toward using stealth over head-on."
It's almost as if they intended it, so that you don't run around stomping everything. In all seriousness though I'm glad their internal reviewers are looking to games with standout storytelling as their inspiration.
"They should change the gameplay so it doesn't fit the theme and gameplay intent but makes us approve it".
I agree with just about every word of the review that was mentioned in this article. The game is great in many ways. But, the gunplay is mediocre. There are many games doing it much, much better.
There are very few games doing anything else better though.
While I agree that TLOU2 is a masterpiece from a technical point of view, I wonder if it would work from a profitability point of view. The game took a long time to be developed to reach that level of detail and narrative. I wonder how many million units need to be sold to cover all the costs and bring the desired gross margin to the project.
Yes it is profitable.
Most likely yes as it probably has sold short of 10M but I will only believe those claims from developers once I could see how they calculate it. Which is impossible of course. Saying a game is profitable can mean many things.
Well you may not believe if don't want, and I don't need you to believe. But we have ballpark of the cost of the games and the revenue (plus Sony official report of profits), plus if NDs games weren't profitable Sony wouldn't allow them to run free and do what they want to do.
Not going to go down this discussion again, as we all know finance numbers and the way they are reported never were and cannot be manipulated somehow...
So your argument is "I don't trust the official numbers or anything else, so I'll go with they are losing money because I think so"?
Believe in your talents Microsoft. Sony will push you to do better and you will push Sony to do better. Show me what graphical narrative talents Xbox will bring to this 9th gen Microsoft :)
I agree a 100% with this internal review. Amazing story but that combat for both the 1st and 2nd game is unbearable. It's too bad because that's what made me stop playing it and thus led me to cancel my PS Now subscription since that was the only game I was interested in playing.
And you also think all the uncharted games combat unbearable that you can only win with stealth?
"One big gripe about the moment-to-moment gameplay was really with the game's inventory system. The inputs for weapon switching are all located on the d-pad, and there was no 'quick switch' between current and previous weapons. So, unless you've got an additional thumb on your left hand, then you're going to have to take your thumb off the movement controls on the left stick in order to switch weapons, which was notably frustrating during the more frenetic combat sequences."
I speak with all respect and I have no intention of feeding console wars, but ...
It makes a lot of sense for the "xbox" internal review team to have so much trouble with the D-pad. Their controller is extremely limited in terms of access to the d-pad and requires constant "take your thumb off the movement controls on the left stick in order to use d-pad" which is "notably frustrating during the more frenetic combat sequences" . They certainly do not use the simple movement of using the left index finger to press the buttons of the "d-pad" (the famous claw grip on d-pad).
Think about it, they must play thinking "how I replicate this experience here on an Xbox ( including replicate the xbox controller)", and the limitations of the xbox control, the analog at the top,start to appear. This is without a doubt a terrible config. for several games. (looks at MH, devil may cry, Nioh, Dark souls, etc.)
Man I never had to use the claw-grip at all. And to tell you the truth even in crushing difficult on UC I don't need to change weapon, like there is no good reason to go from a rifle or machine gun to a pistol mid battle "because I have to reload". I would either start with like the pistol that one shot enemies until no bullets available and then do the rest of the battle on regular machine gun/rifle or just use the second from start. And have platined all UC (twice for remaster) except the one in Vita.
The right thumb sits level with your left thumb pointing upwards so when in motion it makes more sense to have your thumb lowered to constantly move and when changing weapons that it naturally reflexs upwards towards the button layout above. That's why i prefer the offset thumb sticks as moving my right thumb down and flexing it upwards for short moments is a lot straining. Its why many prefer it that way. Having your thumbs pointing downwards isn't as ideal as having them naturally pointing upwards. Remember not all games are FPS or shooters so your right thumb can sit comfortable on the buttons.
Please don't go down that road. Graphics doesnt require talent. Continue to deliver great stories and gameplay.
Did you even read what they said? They praised both the graphical talent and the storytelling of their biggest competition in an internal memo. You should hope Microsoft will go down that road.
That's the issue, the Storytelling with TLOU2 is not a road i want them to go down, as well with graphics which anyone can make a good looking game, that just comes under budget and time. They will lose me if they start producing games like ND as its not my cup of tea.
If they don't require talent why no X1 game was capable of outdoing it? And why did Halo show up in such a poor state?
Depends on what you mean by outdoing? The games they make cater to a different audience. Games don't need to win awards to be loved or played.
Completely dodged the point. You said it doesn't need talent to do (and internal team from MS saying that is what they should be aiming to)... so since it doesn't need talent why no other dev in console comes near? Again, why was Halo made a laughing stock? MS couldn't even hire the low talent need to make decent graphics?
You fail to understand what talent is. For starters comparing a company that crunched its employees to one that didnt are two different things. Conparing two companies from other sides of the world with different affects of covid are two different things. What makes a good looking polished game comes from experience, time and money.
Alot of the staff working on big AAA games are also contractors who get hired, yes contractors also worked on TLOU2. Some are talented some are just experienced and you never see them or hear about them again.
Halo Infinite was shown rushed, guess what is making the game look better? Not talent, but time and resources. You have been on this site for a long time now, you should know these things by now. Its common sense.
You fail to have logic them.
Sony HQ is in USA just as MS, ND is in USA same as Halo dev. And crunch is just part of business but sure you can pretend it doesn't happen in MS at all. MS decided it was in a good state, they only started making excuses after the reveal. And well crunch can be solved with more time allowed (which you claimed is the main thing for good graphics). But sure remove Halo if you want, what about all the other games from MS on the entire gen, which looked better than TLOU2? And sure you can even go with HZD, SM, GoW if you want so you don't compare just to ND.
The metacritic, GOTY and all for most of the first party of Sony really show they don't have talent but MS sure have.
How good a game looks depends how long the game has been in the oven plus team size and budget. Games like GoW, TLOU and even HZD weren't made over night and depends where most of the budget goes into. Eg just compare HZD to BOTW, HZD looks way better however lacks substance compared to BOTW.
With your logic, than Nintendo has no talent because their games look subpar to Sonys and Xbox. Halo Infinte is looking better because its back in the oven, having more staff and resources to improve it. Talent has nothing to do with it.
Lets not compare company circumstances, it was proved ND crunched heavily on TLOU2 where as 343 havnt been with Halo Infinite. Compare the games 343 crunched on with Halo 4 and 5 and those games looked amazing. Rockstar crunched with RDR2 aswell.. See a pattern.
Nope. HZD was faster to do than BOTW from what we know, that already throw your argument out of the window.
Nintendo team certainly can't prove their are talented in making great graphics (well you seem to think there is only one talent available, or worse no talent is needed to do most thing).
Nintendo console doesn't have the power to run the graphical detail to the level of PS4 or Pro, MS doesn't have this excuse and also Nintendo doesn't aim photorealism, MS can't use this excuse as well.
So you say Halo 5 had crunchy and budget, does it look anywhere near TLOU2? Guess not.
There are plenty of games with crunch that doesn't look great, Cyberpunk had like 7 years on the making with insane crunchy as well and doesn't look anywhere near TLOU2 on the PS4 as well.
How many more excuses will you find to downplay what your console and company of choice doesn't do well?
Don you really dropped the ball here. You countered your own arguments. Nintendo cannot produce great graphics because of hardware, exactly, not talent. Halo 5 is considered one of the best looking FPS games, Gears 5 is considered one of the best Unreal engine games, Forza is considered one of the best looking racing games. TLOU2 is not a FPS like Halo. That's like comparing Ori to TLOU2. Two completely different games, two with very different directions.
HZD's world looks great because that's where most of its resources went into mean while at Nintendo they spent their resources in offering more than just the visuals, hence why it sits on as one of the best games this generation. Play the two and you will see my point.
You are clearly confused with this topic. You understand the difference between graphics and bugs right? Have you seen Cyberpunk running on a high end PC?
Sony invest heavy into the graphics of their games, MS and Nintendo not so much. Their are many factors to why a game will look better than another game. Its not based around talent. Time, resources, labor, technology, crunch, all make the difference. Disagree all you want. The proof is right their. Just look at Halo Infinite, more time and resources = better graphics.
Graphics don’t require talent? You are manifestly oblivious as to what art requires.
ND don't make artys looking games, they make games that look realistic, something money and time creates not so much talent.
You are further displaying your complete ignorance [of what art is].
That very old "If it isn't cartooney it isn't art". I guess all the art in the world, from paiting to sculptures that were done for centuries or milenium until modernity (when they got more artists going out of realism, but still have plenty) now aren't art. I'm always so grateful to have the expertise of Azz displayed, will save a lot of students time when studying arts, they just need to look at anything that you can recognize the subject and say it isn't art it is just copy and paste that anyone with time and money can replicate.
Something you train and learn is not talent, talent is something you are born with. I am amazing at my job, doesnt mean i am talented at it, im just experienced and knowledgeable. See the difference?
I do hope for the sake of your company that you are way more capable on it than you are at making your point.
But you still didn't refute the point. And just to remove you from the illusion, talent without effort and harnessing your skills are pointless.
You do understand that game devs study and learn to code and develope. Much like any work force. Im not talented at my job, however i succeed at what i do because i was trained and offer almost a decade of experience. You dont need talent to do what i do, you just need a brain and the ability to learn.
A decade of experience isn't much, sorry to inform you. But I'm sure what you do doesn't need any talent. Still waiting on how that relates to great graphics needing just time and money but other games that had similar time and money put at them doesn't compare. And well you don't need to take my word for it, you can take MS internal review.
Mate, don't worry about what i do for a living, i am about to purchase my 2nd house in acouple of months so i am doing fine with what i do. And it seems the point misses you again. You don't need talent to be a good worker, not all jobs need to find superstars to achieve work targets and goals. You can learn to make great graphics, you don't need to be born with the talent. Most companies hire contractors from outside to help boost game development. More staff = better results. Same with more time. Crunching employees doesn't require talent either.
Sure, whatever you need to defend MS and say Sony isn't good.
Did i say that in this thread?
You are a talentless argumenter.
Aren't most games? What was innovative about the gunplay in TLOU2, outside of looking pretty?
Gameplay doesn’t need to be innovative to be good and fun. Otherwise, most games you like couldn’t be great, by applying your stupid logic.
Again, you’re so eager to downplay that you make comments without thinking things through.
And remind us of how much you played TLOU2 to show your extensive knowledge of the gunplay? What does looking pretty have to do with it?
None of you anwsered the question.. you know what that means. Goal post moving.
We didn't answer your question because it doesn't even makes sense. What does graphic have to do with gunplay to even start with?
Did you even read the question?
Yes I did, that is why I'm asking what gunplay inovations have to do with graphics.
You clearly don't understand the question. Until you understand it, ill wait.
Sure I can't understand a question that makes no sense. Whenever you explain to me how graphics relate to gunplay innovation I may try to answer to you.
Tip: Don't try to answer questions you fail to understand.
Hint: Read the 4th, 5th and 6th word in my question.
The comment you first replied to said the gunplay is amazing. There was no mention about it being innovative in the first place, before you tried to implied innovation is required for said gunplay to be good.
The one who can’t follow what was said is you. You are trying too hard to downplay and everyone can see it.
Your comments about what constitutes art are ignorant at best and proof enough that you act out of bad faith.
Goal post moving? The topic has never been about innovative gunplay gameplay.
The stuff you say at times. I am not allowed to call it as it is, so I’ll refrain myself from saying it as it is.
But suffice to say, you’re the one pushing the topic aside for no reason other than you doing your regular misguided shtick.
How am i pushing the subject?
So you don’t know what you’re talking about yet come in a topic to instil the negativity you got from other people. So insightful.
You really can’t form a genuine opinion on TLoUp2 until you’ve played it. Joel became one of my favorite characters of all time, and it ripped my freakin heart out to see what was done to him. I’m not ashamed to admit it—I bawled when he died. I played TLoU 1 more times through than any other game (6 or more times I think), and I grew to freakin love Joel—and his relationship with Ellie. His death was harder for me than any other character death from any game, movie, or TV show. Still almost a year later, it genuinely upsets me knowing Joel’s story ends with TLoUp2, but I do understand why the story went that direction.
And me being upset about his death doesn’t make it bad storytelling. I do feel like it was possibly excessively brutal in order to increase the emotional response, but overall, from a story perspective, his death made sense. The world of TLoU isn’t meant to please people and be a place of joy; it’s meant to be real. And real is often times brutal and hard.
They did fail to get me to love Abby. I never truly did. But I also know a ton of people who feel otherwise. As for the end, if you love Ellie, which I do, you don’t want her to kill Abby. You want Ellie to be better and be able to elevate herself, finally, above her obsession with revenge.
Yeah, it’s brutal :( While I thought TLoUp2 was damn near a masterpiece and was beautiful in many ways, it was pretty difficult, emotionally. My girlfriend told me my mood appreciably, negatively changed for the 2wk or so it took me to play it. Never had any form of media affect me quite like that. It’s just a brutal world involving brutal things. Wish I would’ve known about Ted Lasso back then. Would’ve brought me right back to joy and positivity haha (if you haven’t seen Ted Lasso, do yourself a favor and change that).
Critics sure, but what does the Userbase think?
https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/the-last-of-us-part-ii
You mean what does the trolls and whiny vocal minority think, but those do not represent the entire userbase.
If you think bringing up metacritic’s well documented user review bombing as one of your “arguments”, you should consider sticking to XBox and Nintendo related topics and avoid discussing Sony related stuff entirely. That would be good for everyone.
Why did people bomb it? I watched shows like Angry Joe who nails it on the head. Also this article references Xbox.. sooo another none researched post from you. The bigger question is why are you in a this thread..
By your same logic, games like Animal Crossing NH are bad because it has a 5.5/10 user metascore.
Id give AC a 6/10. I wasnt a huge fan of it.
I suspect I'm the last person who's take you'd be interested in, but if to answer the implied question of what I like about TLOU2's story...just about everything! I mean there are what I regard as a few secondary missteps, but the bottom line is that it's a more honest game I think than just about any other out there in terms of how trauma makes people feel and a lot more. It's a game without clear heroes and villains, without simple, happy or sad endings, that's actually about something pertinent, that has dykes to watch out for, that boldly tackles the question of gender identity head on (in its own way), that makes you question much of what you thought about the first game (without disrespecting that material)...and for all these reasons and more, it's just a really affecting story, at least to me. I'd go as far as to say groundbreaking, in agreement with the Microsoft take. Reading a plot overview doesn't do it any sort of justice at all. You absolutely have to experience it. Give it a chance before you condemn!
Man you are sounding like so many people on the review thread and discussion with a very poor impression of the game based of false/partial information gave from some very well know "reviewers". Some of those even took Abby for a transgender to see how much attention they put on the game (they didn't even play, they done a review based on the leaks - that had a lot of wrong on it).
Joel's death made sense in everyway even if it was sour. It would be like hating Game of Thrones because your favorite char died. That was the setting of the story, now hating the end gave by TV is ok.
You seem to want MS to learn from all PS successful games, maybe just become a PS gamer? Easier for you than waiting for an entire generation and then some for those experiences to arrive on Xbox.
Guess his point gone over your head, you don't need to ask MS to emulate Sony as you can buy Sony games for PS. It would make more sense to want MS to be very different from Sony so you can play different games on your Xbox.
Understood, yes from technical point each of the three can learn from each other. On the size though not sure I would agree with you since studio count don't make the largest first party among them. You need output from them.
