Talk:The Last of Us/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• http://www.vg247.com/2013/02/04/the-last-of-us-naughty-dog-owns-stealth-survival-horror/
• http://www.destructoid.com/the-last-of-us-sony-and-naughty-dog-s-survival-horror-217651.phtml

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Edit request on 24 June 2013

TheKing012 (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Arkham City link

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)

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)

Neil Druckmann as a director (creative) and writer.

Looking in the history, this listings of the infobox for director(s) has left out Neil Druckmann as a formal director (as creative director) as well as Bruce Straley as the one and only director. -with the justification that he was only the writer for the game and not a director (creative). Although he is a creative director as an employee for naughty dog, he is also the formal creative director for The Last of Us with Bruce Straley listed as the Game Director (take a look at the credits, can be referenced if required.) Thus, like with Amy Henig and the Uncharted series' pages, he deserves the title as a director (creative) along with Bruce Straley (game) as well as the fact that he is the writer. He is not just the writer for the game! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.179.149 (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed - remove the Autosave whole section and perhaps just mention it very briefly elsewhere.--Gaunt (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

‘The Last Of Us’ Sales Pass 3.4 Million, Fastest-Selling PS3 Title Of 2013

Source: http://theslanted.com/2013/07/7630/sony-confirms-the-last-of-us-sales-pass-3-4-million-fastest-selling-ps3-title-of-2013/ zerohot99 (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

First week sales

According to WP:VG/RS VGChartz is unreliable. Just because Forbes reposted their data it does not become reliable, does it? (sorry for my bad english) Sillent DX (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2013

In the list of songs from the soundtrack, there are two named "The Path". The first one correctly says "The Path", while the second entry should be "The Path (A New Beginning)" 65.101.6.216 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it, thanks! zerohot99 (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

I just noticed that TPS was removed from the genre. Why? FrameCity99 (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Characters sub-section

I'm editing the page all day and the Characters sub-section seems incomplete to me. Need some inputs from you guys. Rudolf sonora (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: I edited the Characters sub-section. :) Rudolf sonora (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Okay, here are my thoughts. As a gamer, I aknowledge that locations are an important part of the graphic spectacle of many games, such as Crysis 3 or Dishonored. However, we are used to only mention the major cities and locations on Wikipedia for several reasons: i) major locations are less likely to change their names; ii) minor locations like streets, avenues and subsectors are sometimes never mentioned by their names in games and they add no encyclopedic value; and iii) most common users would not care about such names. For example, telling that San Andreas is based in the Los Angeles area is relevant, but saing that Los Santos' downtown is very similar to Los Angeles' one isn't.

Usually, adding the names of the locations to the plot section is irrelevant because they add nothing of value to the reader. Text cannot properly explain to them which street (or building) is which, so adding such information is unnecessary and can even be considered a bit indiscriminate. I know that for us, as gamers, it can be interesting, but our aim is to write an article that can be understandable to both gamers and non-gamers alike, and most common people would not even notice that no locations other than the city (or the country) are mentioned. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Omit it. The mentioned edit appears to be trivia unless someone makes a case for how it's important in an otherwise concise plot section. Its only defense up to now is that it doesn't hurt and for information's sake. Also not sure that WP:ATD deletion policy linked in the original post applies here, but WP:BRD says that this order of events is fine—you probably could have worked it out on the talk page amongst yourselves without putting up an RFC.  czar · · 16:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Organization!!!

There are some major errors and problems, in which the article is laid out, that need to be fixed.

• A marketing section needs to be created now to talk about the things involved with the game before its release not involved with development. Sentences and paragraphs in the development and release sections don't belong in them. Things like the announcement, trailers, tv spots, events, and demos need to be in it. Create sub-sections for those if they work.(done-fill and organize)

• The development sections needs to actually talk about the development of the game in terms of the developers work in it in their studio. All of the info needed in the development videos and movie released by naughty dog and Sony. I would suggest having a story and setting sub-section, character development sub-section, and a technical and gameplay development sub-section.(fill)

• The release section should talk about the things involved with the game after/during its release not involved with reception. This should have a introduction body stating the release day and its delay and perhaps pre-order info, a sub-section stating the retail editions (already done), and a downloadable content sub-sections (season pass and future dlc packs, making of the last of us movie). Please have all things to do with sales in its own sub-section or paragraph in reception. The controversy stuff like with ellen page should be in here too. (done-fill)

• Although not as important, expansion to the setting and character sections in synopsis need to be done too. A preview section to reception should added also.

As you can tell, much work needs to be done. I'll try to help along if I'm able to and am up for the task. Everyone's help is much appreciated. I hope you guys consider this list and any additions/different ideas are encouraged. Thanks.Improvering (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is it tagged Zombie game? The Infected were never dead until you, someone, or the virus kills them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.63.171 (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

New Multiplayer Gametype

The multiplayer section does not discuss Interrogation, a new mode delivered in a recent update. (Info Here: http://thelastofus.wikia.com/wiki/Multiplayer#Interrogation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.130.94.213 (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

Bad grammar under multiplayer. 4th sentence "chose" -> "choose".Nyquillerium (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Trut-h-urts man, please be sure to change |answered=no to |answered=y when completing a request. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2014

the game (last of us) did appear on sonys website as "for PC" also but in 2014, this was removed and now everyone beleieves its a PS3 exclusive which is incorrect

60.234.174.189 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this game a first person view or a third person view??

"shooter" or not, the type of view, first or third, should be described in the first paragraph and one of the first things said to describe the game- since most fps players will not even give third person games any attention, its important to reveal that information right away. After skimming the aritcle , it doesnt seem to describe the view anywhere, but regardless it should be in the first paragraph. If its a mix of first and third person perspectives, it still needs to say that right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 10:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've read reviews that described it as having third person shooter elements and after playing the game I agree. And Thus, I Can Do It (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The_Last_of_Us#Gameplay. Яehevkor ✉ 13:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Third-Person Shooter genre

I updated the genre but it was promptly removed because Third-person shooter is "not a primary genre of this game". How is it not? The shooting mechanics are a core part of the game. Reviews of the game talk about the shooting mechanics and it has won awards in the "Third-Person Shooter" category. I believe it should be added. And Thus, I Can Do It (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The shooting mechanics are a part of the game, stealth is equally a part of the game, shooting however is not a primary function of the game and ammo is scarce (per Survival Horror), the action-adventure element is the primary genre and shooting can be a part of that, third person perspective is not isolated to any genre, but shooting is not the core goal of the game and it is not possible to list every tertiary genre to which a game may belong in the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. I must have played the wrong difficulty level because ammo certainly was not scarce by any definition and shooting was emphasized frequently. And Thus, I Can Do It (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well that's the point, if you're playing on a lower difficulty ammo might be more plentiful and you can certainly choose to shoot first and turn everything the periodic set pieces into a giant fire fight, on harder difficulties you will not have this option and will be desperate for ammunition, and I personally chose stealth and melee heavily on my playthroughs. So it is neither one or the other, but definitely an action and adventure game. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW: "Grounded" present free at Amazon

As this might be helpful to expand out the article, the Grounded video feature is presently free at Amazon [1], likely only good in the US. Even if you can't include anything from it now, it can't hurt to get it into your video library. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Page for Ellie

'Fraid I'm not going to be able to do any heavy lifting on this one. I've yet to finish The Last of Us (something I must correct posthaste), and also plan on doing some other stuff. Alas, it seems rude to run up to someone and force them to write an article, but if anyone's interested, I'd be in favour of it and have done some source-hunting (skimmed most of them, to avoid spoilers, so be warned!).

Development

• "Strife Breeds Strife: Inspiration For The Last Of Us", Game Informer (inspiration from films like The Road and some others Joel and her's relationship)
• "My, My, You Certainly Look Different, Ellie", Kotaku
  • 'Changes to The Last of Us' Ellie and announcement of Ellen Page in Beyond are "complete coincidence"', Eurogamer
  • "The Last of Us: A Tale of Two Ellies", IGN
  • "Naughty Dog: Ellie change in TLOU to show “younger teen more fitting to the story”", VG24/7
  • 'Ellen Page: The Last Of Us "ripped off my likeness"', GamesIndustry International
• "The Last of Us: Ashley Johnson on bringing Ellie to life", PlayStation.Blog
• "Capturing Joel And Ellie For The Last Of Us", Game Informer
• "Ellie's buddy AI in The Last Of Us explained at GDC 2014", Gamasutra
• "New The Last Of Us Developer Diary Explores Joel And Ellie", Game Informer
• "The definitive interview with the creators of Sony's blockbuster The Last of Us (part 1)", GamesBeat (both are protagonists, other stuff)
• "Naughty Dog: We've been asked to push Ellie to the back of the box art", GamesIndustry International
  • "Naughty Dog fought to get Ellie a starring role on The Last of Us cover", MCV
  • "Swedish mag explains Ellie removal from Last of Us cover", MCV
• "Ellie's Backstory To Be Revealed In The Last Of Us Prequel Comic", Kotaku
• "The Last of Us Story DLC Is A Prequel Featuring Ellie", Kotaku
• "The Last of Us DLC: Ashley Johnson on reprising Ellie in Left Behind", PlayStation.Blog
  • "Ashley Johnson Discusses Playing Ellie In New The Last Of Us DLC", Game Informer
  • "Reinventing The Last of Us' Ellie, Reinventing Thief - Up at Noon" (interview with Ashley Johnson kicks in at about 11:30)
• "The Last of Us 'ripe for more stories,' Joel and Ellie's is over", GamesRadar
• "The Last of Us: Left Behind Trailer, Interview", PlayStation.Blog

Reception

• 'Ellen Page Says The Last Of Us' Ellie "Ripped Off My Likeness"', Kotaku
  • "Ellen Page thinks Naughty Dog “ripped off” her likeness for The Last of Us", Ars Technica
  • "Ellen Page: 'I don't appreciate Last of Us ripping off my likeness'", Digital Spy
  • "Naughty Dog: 'Reaction to Ellen Page's AMA was overblown'", GameZone
  • "8 video game characters that are totally based on celebrities", GamesRadar
  • "The Platinum Chalice Awards 2013", GamesRadar (2013's best Ellen Page)
• "The Last of Us' Ellie vs. BioShock Infinite's Elizabeth", IGN
• "The Best Gaming Duos Of 2013", Game Informer (with Joel, of course)
• "Sexism sells? The Last Of Us begs to differ", Edge Online
• "Opinion: Important Female Characters Weren't Marketed Well This Year", Game Informer
• "The Last of Us isn't the solution to sexism in games, but it's a start", Eurogamer
• "The 12 most inspirational female characters in games", GamesRadar
• "From Elika To Ellie: Comparing Prince Of Persia And The Last Of Us", Game Informer
• "Best game characters of the generation", GamesRadar (#38; Joel is also on there at #11)
• 2013 "Spike VGX winners recap", Shack News (winner, hoorah)
• "Best New Character", Hardcore Gamer (winner again, hoorah again)
• "The winner of Destructoid's best 2013 character", Destructoid (nominee only, sorry)
• "'The Last of Us' Cleans Up at DICE Awards", PCMag.com (Outstanding Character Performance, winner)
• "Bafta games: The Last of Us clears up at awards", BBC News (Ashley Johnson wins "Best performer" as Ellie)
• MG Awards 2013 (nominated for "hero of the year") (Polish)

The split between Development and Reception is slightly arbitrary there. Some could be used in both, some of the Development's sources might be redundant, and I'm assuming they're not actually going to be the only sections. Just to give a vague idea of how the article could look. As this year goes by, I'm hoping a few more sources might pop up to help support the article -- though that is then, and not now. I'm still pretty sure the article could stand on it's own, though: there's about 10 unique sources there on Reception alone, and a lot of the reviews for the game highlighted her (so we could perhaps use a few of those -- there's a paragraph on Joel and Ellie's relationship in the article as it is). To anyone who wants to start an article for her, I wish you luck. And of course, for anyone who disagrees with the idea, feel free to object. 'Tis a talk page, after all.

I also spotted a fair bit of Joel coverage. I don't think I saw enough to hold his own article, but you never know, so that might be something to look into. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the need for Ellie to have her own article. She isn't the protagonist and there isn't enough material to justify it. Popcornduff (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ellie has been called numerous times a "protagonist" of The Last of Us, though I will admit she is ultimately followed less than Joel, the PC. She is, of course, the PC in Left Behind, though again I will grant you that is less notable than the main game. However, I think there's more than enough material to justify it. Look it at from outside The Last of Us: Ellie is, from a critic's view, the standout character of 2013, an interesting realistic female character (drawing additional attention due to the fight to put her on the cover and so on), source of a small controversy with Ellen Page, and a successful look at a father/daughter-type dynamic.

I think that should be more than enough to justify her notability. Now that the BAFTAs and others have rolled past, I can cite 5/6 awards for that first point on its own. Plus, we can talk about her casting, her AI, and design changes in order to further bulk up the article enough to make it distinguishable from the game's one. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 19 March 2014

I'm still not convinced. Yes, Ellie is a notable character, and more could be written about her; for example, there doesn't seem to be anything in the article about her being gay, which is a pretty big thing in the games industry, and provoked a lot of commentary.

But I can't think of a game that isn't part of a bigger franchise with characters deserving of a separate article. Mario, Sonic, Master Chief, Lara Croft, yes - but these are characters that span several games, books, films etc. If there were only one Tomb Raider game, even if it had been a major commercial success, I can't imagine why Lara Croft would deserve a separate Wiki article. Until Ellie appears in several new, independent works (which may well end up happening, who knows?) all of her info belongs in the LAU article and should be understood in the context of LAU. Popcornduff (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Also - everything you suggest for Ellie's article should be part of the LAU article instead. It's missing stuff, like I said. Popcornduff (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because she's only had one appearance doesn't preclude article status. We had an article on GLaDOS way before Portal 2 came out, and in that case, hell if we'd tried to put the info on GLaDOS in there, there wouldn't be enough space for an article on Portal. The info on Ellie isn't that big, but it's still fair and more than enough to populate its own. I'm not opposed to expanding this article to contain more, but moving onto such detail on that single character is a bit undue for an article about the game itself (even in this case where Ellie and Joel are both very central to its concept). See also Jenny (Doctor Who) and Astrid Peth, both classified as GAs despite each only appearing in one story as opposed to being merged into their respective episodes. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Good counter-examples. But I'm still not convinced; at least not yet. I think our focus should be on covering Ellie in better detail in the LAU article before considering whether she deserves her own page too. I think the lack of coverage of the response to her homosexuality is a huge missing piece right now, for a start. If we end up with a lot of good stuff, all of it notable, and it's weighing the article down too much, then we could move it. Popcornduff (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(←) Fair enough. Here, for her homosexuality: [2][3][4][5]. I'm sure there'll be some more (check some reviews of Left Behind?), but hopefully those'll be useful. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dead Island comparison

I'm with @User:J.A.R. Huygebaert on this one, @User:Popcornduff. I don't see why you would think it is irrelevant: clearly it says something about the development of The Last of Us, and that they were afraid Dead Island would be similar in tone or story. The only bit is "While the gameplay of Dead Island did not match up to that showed by the trailer" that isn't neutral, but the rest is. --Soetermans. T / C 04:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a particularly revealing thing for the devs to have discussed, because there are ZILLIONS of zombie apocalypse games; why did that one trouble them? It wasn't clear. I mainly cut it because it was badly written, non-neutral and didn't seem important; easier to cut than rewrite in these circumstances. Re-add it if you like, but it doesn't deserve more than a sentence, IMO. Popcornduff (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think you're right, I was too hasty. The original text mentioned it was the "human emotional side" to the apocalyptic setting that drew the comparison. Needs pruning though. Popcornduff (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

new page, Last of Us Story

Given that the majority of praise given to TLoU is due to its story, and that the current article is unable to host an adequate description of it, I think a new article should be created dedicated its story and analysis.

Neuroxic (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The article already has a plot section to cover the story. Why do you believe the current article is "unable to host an adequate description" of it? (edit: oh, because I reverted your edit, I see. If you think the plot section is missing relevant details, add them, but make sure they ARE relevant, and make sure you keep the whole section to an acceptable length.)

Analysis should be part of the same article, as it is, for example, in the Romeo and Juliet article. Doesn't deserve a separate page. Popcornduff (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The plot section is pretty terrible. Some sections are over-detailed and some components of the game's plot are entirely missing. Also the motivation for the characters actions are not well sketched. (E.g the line "In the fall, the two finally find Tommy" ... why finally find him? It was never mentioned in the plot summary before that they were ever looking for him!) In what I posted today I tried to keep the level of detail consistent as well as make it understandable for someone who hasn't actually played the game. Either the plot needs to be severely cut down to keep the level of detail at a general level (which I'll be happy to do), or do this and provide a link to a more comprehensive article on it. Neuroxic (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Tommy stuff was missing. I've added it and done another copy-edit of the entire thing. We certainly don't need another article just to describe the plot. (Is there any legitimate case of this happening elsewhere on Wikipedia?) Popcornduff (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tommy stuff, although there's still quite a bit more to do - don't worry I'll get round to it eventually. I guess as I planned to add in detail about the story's development, influence and reception as well as expanding the plot summary, - and try and keep it in one place - I thought a separate article for this stuff would be adequate, but I realize now it's more sensible to just expand the development, influence and reception section of the main article instead.

Oppose Neuroxic (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per Popcornduff. Chambr (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi @User:Neuroxic, you might want to take a look at the guidelines, and maybe those specifically on video games. I just had to take out a bit you added on the reception section. Concerning the plot, over explaining it takes away from the article, instead of adding to it. It's important to know for the average reader what the story is, not to know every detail. However, if you would be able to find lots of different sources and opinions on the story of TLoU, then a new article specifically on that topic might be good idea. Right now though space isn't an issue. I hope this helps. --Soetermans. T /

C 01:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello @User:Soetermans. Ah, the infamous manual of style... (I haven't dared read it yet) Sure. None of the the sections are particularly long and no where near as detailed enough to warrant expansion. I'll just stick to the norm by expanding the original article first. Also it seems clear to me that the game was more well received by the public than reviewers - something not mentioned in the article. Would this be appropriate to add (assuming I could create a good paragraph on it?)

Neuroxic (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, the manual of style is a very important thing for any editor to familiarize themselves with, no matter what level. In order to be able to edit competently, it is imperative that you read it. Chambr (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely understand, it's just a... very big task. But just for the record, I will get round to reading it.Neuroxic (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

LGBT stuff

Hi guys,

I noticed that the LGBT categories were added, but the article itself doesn't say anything about LGBT-related stuff. I noticed that GLAAD found Bill "deeply flawed but wholly unique gay character". I'm not sure where to fit this in, maybe someone with more actual writing skills could add it? --Soetermans. T / C 15:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I added the LGBT categories because Ellie is gay and this received a lot of media attention. It's briefly mentioned in the plot summary that she kisses her female friend Riley. The LGBT themes need covering in the article, as it's by far the highest-profile video game to explore LGBT issues and it got a lot of attention for it. I should do it myself when I can be bothered... Popcornduff (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I added a LGBT section. Popcornduff (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

FA

What do you guys think about nominating this for FA? I definately would support. User:URDNEXT (talk)

I don't think it qualifies for a GA yet, yet alone FA. It's missing coverage of the media response to Ellie's homosexuality (a big deal), and the Multiplayer section currently has a overdetailed template stamp on it. Popcornduff (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

How long do you think it's gonna take to update these things? URDNEXT (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It will take as long as it takes for someone to care enough to fix them, find the time to do it, and do a good enough job. Perhaps you will be that person? There may be other problems preventing a successful FA candidate, by the way; those are just two I thought of off the top of my head. Popcornduff (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have revamped the multiplayer section and I'm doing a draft for the homosexuality part. URDNEXT (talk)

I already did the LGBT section. Popcornduff (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be worked on before it can meet GA standards, just to echo what Popcornduff was getting at. Chambr (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's have a list of things that need to be fleshed out, so it's easier to get it done. What do you think? URDNEXT (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

GAN?

URDNEXT, you've again nominated an article that you've barely worked on and I've been going through talk page revisions to see if you've asked any of the major contributors if they'd like to take the article here. SNAAAAKE!!, Trut-h-urts man, Soetermans, Popcornduff, Rudolf sonora, Improvering and Darkwarriorblake, are there any objections to going through with the review? And URDNEXT, why have you nominated an article with a cleanup tag still on the Multiplayer section? That alone is grounds for quick-fail. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote in the FA discussion above, I don't think the article is ready for a GA or FA nomination. I explained my objections in detail in the Objectives discussion. Other editors may disagree, dunno. Sorry, URDNEXT! Popcornduff (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll close the nomination. By the way, c, did you see the changes I made to Sleeping Dogs? The article is coming together really nicely! URDNEXT (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're closing the nomination, you should remove the GAN template from this page. Sleeping Dogs is coming together a lot better, but in my opinion it isn't all the way there yet. My suggestion is that after you finish the work and before you do another GAN, you get it copy-edited. I may be available for that. CR4ZE (t • c) 00:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll make sure to contact you when the time comes c. URDNEXT (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Objectives

This is the list of things that need to be improved, worked on, or created in the draft for the The Last of Us article. Feel free to add any constructive criticism. URDNEXT (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A brief list of major problems as I see them right now:

• The Multiplayer section is still too detailed, and not brilliantly written. To pick a random example: "Crafting ingredients and producible items do not carry over between rounds." Is that important here? I doubt it; and terms like "producable items" are borderline gibberish to most audiences. The section's too long in proportion to its importance (the multiplayer component of the game isn't as important or notable as the single player, but the section length doesn't reflect that), and it also looks suspiciously short on citations.
• Development section is a mess. Lots of good details, but poorly stitched together; for one thing, events should be described in chronological order. This needs someone to thoroughly pick over the sources, find the really important bits of information, and sort of start again.
• The citations have to be spotless for a FA; properly formatted, consistent and so on. There can be no uncited claims. The article would fail that hard right now.
• A lesser one, but if there are any sources which discuss the game's feminist themes (such as when Ellie comments on a poster of a model), we should cover that briefly.

Popcornduff (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take on the mulitplayer. Have some experience with multiplayer sections. URDNEXT (talk) URDNEXT (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Some other comments after seeing this at GAN: (1) The choice of images isn't great—I don't see why the visual of crafting is necessary or how it meets the non-free criteria as necessary to illustrate in the article. Same goes for the limited edition—I don't see a need to illustrate. A better image from gameplay would be useful, though. (2) There are way too many sections. Things can be condensed and made to flow better  czar ♔ 16:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

True origins, we got it all wrong

The true origins to the story of the game came back in the 90's when Druckmann (the director) was in college. I think we can improve the article if we add the new info.

Hres the link: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LjeUN_-oVzU&list=PLMOe7mUBFuujW4LolCJiJZAIjSFZPdiMI

Tezero URDNEXT (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sales

I was a bi confused reading this article. In the article's lead it states "An updated version for the PlayStation 4, The Last of Us Remastered, was released on July 29 in North America, July 30 in Australia and Europe, and August 1 in the United Kingdom, selling over 1.5 million copies in 24 hours." while in the "sales" subsection it states "In its first week, The Last of Us: Remastered sold 632,000 copies". So which one is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWETrishMickiefan (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Development section

I tried to do some copy editing in the Dev section, there are some issues I encountered and various notes I'd like to share:

• Why the year after every movie/game cited? I looked at Bioshock Infinite as an example and there was nothing of the sort. Personally, I say it's much cleaner this way.
• A list of "inspirations" is not relevant: it's boring and heavy to read. We should tell WHY they were inspiring and WHAT they inspired. For this is reason I removed this reference here for the time being.
• Despite my previous note I kept in the text some random refs: comic series The Walking Dead (because it's the most famous zombie thingy ever), book The Road and movie 28 days later.
• I removed this, because it doesn't have a ref and I didn't know how to include it in the text. Perhaps we should search more information about the game design choices? "In Uncharted 2, protagonist Nathan Drake bonds with the Tibetan guide Tenzin through collaborative gameplay. This proved to be an effective method for storytelling, so the team developed Joel and Ellie with this in mind, using gameplay to build a dynamic and complex bond between the characters."
• We still have a citation needed and that's really really bad.
• The section have a lack of overall view, the paragraphs are too short and the are too disconnected, maybe we should start from scratch.
• We need more information about the release date and the announcement of the game. Once we have enough about it, we should re-include the sentence about when it "went gold", keeping it now just sounds silly to me.

What do you think? Heinerj (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Also look at this this, this and probably many more, for needed improvements. Heinerj (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Heinerj, I agree with everything that you brought up, but I just wanted to let you know that I'm actually working on an article for the game's development over at my sandbox (despite the revision history, I have actually been working on it recently; I've just been saving my edits elsewhere). It's coming along nicely, and addresses many of your above problems with the core article. Let me know if you have any further concerns. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This section has long needed improvement (I'm the guy who added the copy edit template tag in the first place, and cleaned it up a lot recently). Rhain, I don't have time to read your WIP yet, but it's great to see someone's gone and done the research and is making an effort. Good work! I am concerned that the development doesn't need its own article, though - is it really necessary to go into that much detail? Popcornduff (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I'm not sure if you've read much into the development of the game, but there's a lot of information out there that is interesting, and (in my opinion) merits its own article. In addition, we actually have eleven "Development" articles on Wikipedia at the moment, many of which are GA (and one FA). Of course, if there's not enough information, it can be merged into the core article, but it definitely looks like there's enough at the moment (and I feel as though I'm still far from completion)! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I still worry a separate article might not be justified, despite the wealth of information - but that's probably my gut instinct for things being neat and tidy talking, and I'm happy to leave that to other editors to argue about, so carry on. ;)

Would it be OK with you if I used what you've got on your sandbox so far to rewrite the Development section in the LOU article? Obviously it would be a very condensed version. Popcornduff (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, go ahead! I was planning on doing that in the future anyway, but the sooner the better. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 11:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of a separate article (this one is really long) and Rhain1999's attempt is amazing. Once we manage to include every piece of information included here and not there, I think we can create the article. Popcornduff, are you planning on writing a brief summary of Rhain's work to include in this article or you're going to copy the whole text? Either way, there really isn't much more to do, great! Heinerj (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read Rhain's page properly yet (I'm at work right now), but I intend to summarise it. I'll probably do that tonight. Popcornduff (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, there are some great Development section summaries on the Grand Theft Auto V, Red Dead Redemption, L.A. Noire and BioShock Infinite articles, among others. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 02:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay on my summary. I did a lot of work on it last night but found the Wiki visual editor lost all the references (why does this happen?). I'll get to it in the next few days. Popcornduff (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Ahh, I hate it when things like that happen. Also, just thought I'd let you know that I should be updating my sandbox article in the next few days with some work that I've been doing on it. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

List of The Last of Us characters

Hi guys,

I noticed that created Grieferhate created List of The Last of Us characters. I think a separate article for the characters of The Last of Us is in order, because of how the characters were developed and received by video game critics, in particular the LGBT and feminist parts.

That does however will need to be expanded on. I've edited a bit just now, but for it to come off we need more hands on board. Popcornduff, Darkwarriorblake, Trut-h-urts man, Info4allthepeople and Rhain1999 (great work on Development of The Last of Us by the way, really impressed by it!), are you interested in helping out? --Soetermans. T / C 12:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe - I've been super-busy with work lately so major Wiki projects have been on hold for me. I haven't had a chance to really look at the list of characters article in depth. What do you think needs work? Popcornduff (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd been considering creating an article like that beforehand, but I was busy with the Development article (I'm glad you like it!). I think a lot of the information from that article can be used on the Characters article. I'll definitely try and help out; however, now that I'm back at school again, it looks like I'll mainly be editing on weekends. I'll see what I can do. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's see... I think a decent lead is in order, to show why having a separate list of characters is notable in the first place. Because the article is about the characters, we can add more detailed information about the in-game decisions they make and what they go through. I'm not sure how to go with reception sections; should they be character by character, or just one describing all characters? Sorting out to what WikiProjects it might belong to is also important. --Soetermans. T / C 00:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of your points. I think, for a Reception section, we could have one similar to the List of Uncharted characters, where it talks about the reception of the relationship and development between characters. However, I also feel as though we could also add a short paragraph at the end of each character section explaining the critical reaction to that character, where applicable (similar to what I've been doing with another article at my workspace). I expect Ellie will have her own article eventually (as suggested here), so we could go more in-depth about her development and reception then. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 04:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Music

I vaguely remember this page having a Music section and all but it's gone now. What happened? I think it deserves a spot here. 49.150.172.230 (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The section has been split to form Music of The Last of Us, with additional images and production information. It has also been wiki-linked in the third paragraph of the Development section. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception

Rhain1999, your work on this article lately has been amazing and I don't mean to "rhain", ho ho, on your parade, but I have a few issues with this section.

I feel it contains a lot of bland summary sentences. "Eurogamer's Welsh felt that the sound design was significantly better than in other games,[58] while Game Informer '​s Helgeson dubbed it "amazing"". That's not really enlightening - if we're going to name and quote specific critics, I feel we need to draw out specific and revealing details about why these particular critics liked the sound design. That might mean naming fewer critics and including a few longer quotes. The same applies to "Kelly of Computer and Video Games found the story memorable" and "Richard Mitchell of Joystiq found that the game's narrative improved the character relationships", for example - the reader doesn't really learn a lot from these summaries. I mean, Kelly found the story "memorable"...? So what? Why? How? Compare these sentences to "Helgeson of Game Informer wrote that the world "effectively and gorgeously [conveys] the loneliness" of the story", which provides a clear, specific bit of criticism about something specific.

There are other, fiddly copy-editor things I'd fix if I were to dive in and get my hands dirty, and I feel the section is a tad overwritten (eg "identified as a highlight"), but I'd like to hear what peeps think of my bigger problem first.

BTW, what's your plan for your stuff about the kiss? Are you planning a Left Behind article? Popcornduff (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Popcornduff. Firstly, I appreciate that pun. Also, thank you for your kind words.

Now, I definitely understand your concerns. When I was nearing the end of rewriting that section, I'd be working on it for many hours, so I was a bit worn out and clearly didn't see past those problems. If you'd like me to go through and see if I can be less vague with some of the reviewers' comments, then I should be able to do this within the next week or so (unless you'd like to give it a go, of course). Are there any paragraphs in particular that suffer the worst from these problems, or do you feel as though it's spread out among all of them?

As for the kiss: yes, I am planning a Left Behind article (I ran out of characters in my edit summary). I've been working on it for about a week (shockingly, I only played Left Behind for the first time last week!), and it's coming along fairly nicely; at this point, I feel as though we shouldn't be adding any large bits of information to the main article, as it's now exceeding 100k characters, and there seems to be enough information to warrant a separate article. However, feel free to add the sentences about the kiss back to the main article if you feel as though it belongs there. There wasn't too much, anyway. Thanks again. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 11:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's cool with you, I might have a go at copy-editing this section myself, but it's such a long and thorough bit I might not get round to it - depends how busy I am with other stuff. I think giving Left Behind its own article is a good idea, and once it exists the stuff about the kiss certainly belongs there and not here - though I'm inclined to keep it on the main LOU article until the LB article is made. Popcornduff (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I'm cool with you copy-editing the section. Also, I understand if you'd like to add the sentences about the kiss back to the main article until the Left Behind article is finished. It should be done within the next week or two, if all goes to plan. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 21:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Gameplay image

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the image currently used in the Gameplay section should be replaced. As mentioned here, the visual of crafting isn't particularly necessary, and doesn't quite meet the non-free criteria. I believe that a screenshot of the combat, stealth (including the "Listen Mode") or AI would be more suitable; possibly a combination. Something like this could work (I like the idea of displaying how Ellie helps during combat), but it's from an old demo, so the user interface is outdated. Let me know what you think. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 08:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Any other thoughts? Popcornduff, Soetermans? -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it's not an especially illuminating screenshot. Popcornduff (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestions on a good screenshot? Unless you're satisfied with the image that's currently on the article, of course. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, not really an interesting image, if you ask me. Maybe something from Pittsburgh, there are many maps with plenty of cover and some of them have really good views. Anyway, definitely something that empathizes both the exploration\scavenging and the combat. I was thinking about the plaza where Ellie uses the rifle, but as Rhain1999 said maybe we want her to be on screen. One question: can someone here take a screenshot (with the PS4 version it should be easy to obtain)? Because I know I can't. Heinerj (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Rhain1999, that one image of crafting isn't the core gameplay of The Last of Us. I'm not familiar with the image guidelines myself though, but I'd be happy to help by powering up my PS4 and trying to make a good screenshot! What would we be the best part of the game for an image? With Sam and Henry in the sewers? Or Somewhere around the university campus, with clickers? --Soetermans. T / C 18:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Soetermans, That would be really helpful if you could do that. I feel like a screenshot of Joel and Ellie with some of the Infected could work. Alternatively, one that includes how Ellie works as A.I. should meet the guidelines, as would one that involves the combat or stealth mechanics. We might even be able to get a screenshot that combines some of these suggestions. Let me know what you think. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 20:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just checked where I'm at with my two savegames, one is on the hardest difficulty, just past the State Capital, the other one was on easy to show a friend the game, where I've just hit the museum. Today and tomorrow I don't have time, Thursday or Friday I'll probably can blaze through and get some screenshots. Shall I just use the share screenshot, or use the PS4 version's photo mode? --Soetermans. T / C 06:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe the share screenshot would be better, as I assume it will feature the game's HUD and UI, which is what we're aiming for. Thank you so much for offering to do this; it's so helpful. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. How many screenshots or images can be used in an article? I'm on my phone right now, looking up guidelines isn't convenient. Because maybe then we can show the stealthy listening mode with clickers and also like a shootout with scavengers. --Soetermans. T / C 13:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just had a look at WP:VGIMAGES, and it doesn't give a strict number of screenshots that can be used in the article; it says they should be used to "identify as many unique or notable elements as possible, and keeping the number of such shots to a minimum". With this in mind, I believe it wouldn't be a terrible idea to include multiple screenshots on the article, especially with the two examples that you gave. With the latter screenshot, something like a shootout with scavengers, it would be really good if you managed to include Ellie helping out with the fight, but don't worry if this is too hard to get. Thanks again. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 20:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This morning I've played a bit, up to the hotel part in Pittsburgh. So far I've taken three screenshots. Just to make things easier, I uploaded them to my own Facebook account and then uploaded them to imgur. If these aren't okay, I can always put them on a usb first and then upload them. The first is in the museum, a clicker that's about to attack Joel. The second is in the suburbs, set in listening mode. A runner, still unaware, can be seen in the alley, and a clicker's outline can be seen further down. The third has Joel entering the house with four clickers, also in listening mode. I like the first because of the tension and atmosphere. The flashlight's spot shows the darkness and how the clicker's shadow is set. The second does have Ellie, but I didn't have a weapon equiped, it just shows the two by four. The shotgun however can be seen on Joel's back. The third shows how careful the player has to be, otherwise Joel will get attacked by the clickers. The bottle image might be handy too, because that's how we can point out how to the game shows how which items are available to distract enemies. --Soetermans. T / C 10:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these! I agree with your point about the first image; that's a definite candidate to include in the article. The second is good for including both Ellie and the Infected in Listen Mode, and the third is good for including even more Infected. These are all great screenshots, but I believe that we should have another that includes the human enemies of the game, and possibly how Ellie's AI works, as she helps Joel with some fights (though I realise that last part is a bit of a stretch). We should be able to include two screenshots, as long as they both have fair use rationales. What do you think? -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 21:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, I'm playing on easy so it's a breeze. If I recall correctly, after the sewers part and the sniper, the campus is next. Somewhere there Ellie also gets a gun, I think. I'll get up early tomorrow just for this :P --Soetermans. T / C 23:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, I don't expect you to put too much work into this, but as long as you're enjoying playing through the game again, then that's great. I look forward to seeing the next batch of screenshots! Thanks again. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh don't worry! I was a bit overzealous in thinking I could blaze through the game though. I'm at the bit where Ellie's handling the hunting gun. While I do still enjoy playing it, I don't think I can play for a couple of days though, sorry about that. --Soetermans. T / C 13:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologise, it's fine. I'm in no hurry to replace the gameplay image, anyway. Just travel through at a comfortable pace, and we'll all be happy! Thanks. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 15:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A small update: I've just arrived at the Dam section. At one point, Ellie did attack a hunter in Pittsburgh, but is was unclear what was happening in the picture. I was thinking, since we've got all these articles that expand on the sections, is a Gameplay of The Last of Us article an option? There's also Gameplay of World of Warcraft and Gameplay of Final Fantasy. I think plenty of reliable sources have described and (p)reviewed the gameplay, right? (@Rhain1999:!) --Soetermans. T / C 16:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Soetermans. I've also had thoughts about a separate Gameplay article. While the references are definitely there (I've recently rewritten the Gameplay section, and the sources are easy to find), I'm not quite sure if there's enough information to warrant a separate article. Other "Gameplay of..." articles are either about a series of games, or a large game encompassing a multitude of different gameplay features. However, I may be wrong; there might be enough information. Let me know what you think.

On the topic of the Gameplay section, do you think we should implement one of your above screenshots to the article, to demonstrate Listen Mode? I think they're all great screenshots; now it's just a matter of narrowing the choice down. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave picking a picture up to you! I've just arrived at the Campus, hopefully Ellie will show her skills soon. For a separate article we could go into more detail, including level structure, health, weapons, stealth, swimming, crafting, horseback riding and playing with Ellie for a bit. --Soetermans. T / C 08:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ellie should start showing her skills soon; she becomes smarter and more talented as the game progresses. As for the Gameplay article: I like your suggestions, but I'm still not sure if it's enough to warrant a separate article. I'll try to start working on a draft in the following weeks, and see how much information I can get together.

With the gameplay image, I'm leaning slightly towards the second screenshot, for the Listen Mode. It has the slight advantage of having Ellie in view. However, the third screenshot is also great as it features more of the Infected. I'd like to hear your opinion on this; do you have a preference? -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you, the second is best of these three. --Soetermans. T / C 10:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Bingo! I think it's a pretty decent one. You can see Joel's holding the bow and the hunter is very close with his axe. This shows how Ellie can help Joel out during fights. --Soetermans. T / C 10:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, that's exactly what I wanted! If you feel as though that's the best one you can get (which is fine, because it's really great), then I can go ahead and add them to the article (unless you'd like to do it yourself, of course, which I'm fine with). -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 11:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No, no, that's all up to you! I'm at the Ellie bit right now, I'll try to get some more nice pictures just in case, but this one can be added for sure. --Soetermans. T / C 11:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and uploaded the two images, and added them to the article. If you manage to obtain a screenshot that you feel is better than the current ones (which are already pretty great), don't hesitate to replace them. Thanks again for doing this! It's really helpful, and the images really help develop a stronger understanding of the gameplay. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 12:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that looks pretty good. I've completed the game yesterday, now I'm on my new game plus run (it's on easy, so now it really is a walk in the park). I'll try and find better and more pictures. --Soetermans. T / C 07:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree; I think they look great in the article. I tried to adequately summarise them in the captions, too. Also, don't worry if you can't find a better picture than those in the article, as they're already pretty great anyway. Thanks again. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 08:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Playing a new game plus on easy is too easy! It's hard to get a decent picture when you don't have to worry about ammo or health. I've still got a save game on survivor mode though, maybe later I'll go back to that one. --Soetermans. T / C 10:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I don't want you to worry too much about getting a new picture; like I've said, the ones currently used on the article are already great, in my opinion. Regardless, I hope you're enjoying playing through the game again! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a thrill just to blow every enemy up for a change, sure. I also noticed that if you're not paying close attention you can easily miss out on a lot of crucial character development moments, like when Ellie asks Joel if they can have a chat, you can just skip that stuff. --Soetermans. T / C 11:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I definitely need to go back and play a New Game Plus on Easy; I'd like to experience that "thrill"!

Yeah, some of the conversations between Joel and Ellie are genuinely interesting and funny, in addition to being crucial character development moments. It's quite interesting thinking about how many small details that Naughty Dog put in the game that aren't likely to be seen by many people. It really impresses me, as does many other features of the game (hence my reasoning for putting so much effort and focus into the related Wikipedia articles). -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 11:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarify

In the development section it says "The team created new engines to satisfy their needs for the game". Engines? Were there multiple engines involved in the development? If so what are their names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamith (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Naughty Dog have their own in-house engines, which do not have public names. Also, to solve your main concern, the paragraph actually clarifies the specific engines in question (artificial intelligence, lighting, user interface; and more on the development article). -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the clarification. And also thank you for removing the tag.--Chamith (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for your helpful contributions to Wikipedia! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 15:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

GAN?

It has come to my attention that the article was recently nominated for GA by Rudolf sonora. A user who has only edited the article three times within the past twelve months (all of which were minor edits) and only has two edits for this entire year so far (one of which was the nomination), I'm not sure if this was the most suitable move, especially considering that none of the recently-frequent editors were contacted on the matter beforehand. I am aware that Rudolf was previously a very frequent editor of the article, but it has changed significantly since then. I just wanted to see if Popcornduff, Soetermans and Trut-h-urts man (and others are welcome to contribute) had any objections with going through with the review? I know that Popcornduff had some issues with the "Reception" section that have not yet been addressed, so that might need to be looked into beforehand. Opinions? -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm also an infrequent editor of the page, but why should the editor have to run it past anyone? While it's preferable for someone who has worked on the article extensively to nominate it, it's perfectly allowed for someone who hasn't. And besides, issues frequently exist in articles nominated for GAN, and those issues can be fixed during the review process. It's not like this will be quickfailed, it's astoundingly close to a GA as is. I don't see why you guys can't just follow the nomination and keep editing alongside it. But again, that's my outsider's 2 cents. Sock (tock talk) 10:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sock. Go for it. Popcornduff (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for replying. I know it's fine for an infrequent editor of the page to nominate it, but I just wanted to check if it was fine with the other editors; we've had some issues with article nominations before, and I know that people often have ongoing concerns with pages that they wish to fix prior to such nominations. I too think it's fine to go ahead, but I just had to verify. Thanks. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 12:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning me, Rhain. I think the article's in a very good shape, but I don't know anything about GA stuff. If I can do anything to help, let me know. --Soetermans. T / C 12:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

pages for joel and ellie

Does anyone think that there is enough information to create articles for the following characters: ellie, joel, tommy, bill? Osh33m (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I've suggested making one for Ellie here, and I'd still support it. I could see Joel getting an article, maybe some of the others, but Ellie seemed the biggest target when I last went source-hunting. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 12:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I must confess I still feel a bit hesitant about the spiralling number of articles we have relating to one game. I concede there's probably sufficient coverage to justify them, but it just seems... untidy. My preference is always towards keeping things neat and concise when we can. Think of the poor reader. Ho hum... Popcornduff (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Popcornduff, I understand your concern, but The Last of Us is undoubtedly one of the biggest video games of all time, so (like Grand Theft Auto V) I think it warrants all of these articles. Also, if all of the information from the many other articles about the game were merged into the main article, it would be far too long.

As for an article about those characters: Osh33m, I've been gradually working on an article for Ellie, using the very helpful sources gathered by The Millionth One. I have other priorities at the moment, but I'm definitely looking into it. As for the other characters: Joel may be warrant his own article, but I think his section on the Characters page is enough; so much has been written about Ellie, I definitely think she deserves her own article, though I'd be happy to hear opposing opinions. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Rhain1999 and The Millionth One I agree, after thinking about it for a short time I think Ellie for now is the only one who deserves her own article, and you say you're working on it, keep up the good work. I look forward to seeing it get published. Osh33m (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Last of Us/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Still new in doing article review so I hope I didn't miss anything important or write something useless. Also, please forgive me if I have made some mistakes. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Review

Lead

• an updated version, The Last of Us Remastered, was released for the PlayStation 4 on July 29, 2014 - Here it does not represent a worldwide view.
• players use firearms, improvised weapons and stealth to defend against hostile humans and zombie-like creatures. Stealth need to be wiklinked.

Body

• Players traverse post-apocalyptic environments, using firearms, improvised weapons and stealth to defend against hostile human and zombie-like creatures infected by a mutated strain of the Cordyceps fungus. - I think it need to be reword slightly since it is almost identical to the lead
• A dynamic cover system is also present, in which players crouch behind obstacles to gain a tactical advantage during combat - Any explanations on why the cover system is dynamic?
• The game's online multiplayer allows up to eight players to engage in both co-operative and competitive gameplay in recreations of multiple single-player settings. - It personally think that "co-operative" only need to mention when a standalone co-op mode is included.
• No major problems is found in the plot section
• The development section is very comprehensive. The development of the game's art, engine, story, music, sound, concept are all there. Well done!
• Information about The Last of Us: American Dreams shouldn't be in the development section in my opinion. It should be mentioned somewhere in the adaptations section.
• I think that information about the release dates, delay, additional content and The Last of Us Remastered can be split to a new section called "Release"
• There is no point having The Last of Us: Left Behind wikilinked.
• Survivalist Weapon Bundle added four new weapons. I assume this bundle also need to be italicized
• ...which assigns a normalized rating in the 0–100 range... - I don't think this part is necessary
• Richard Mitchell of Joystiq found that the game's narrative improved the character relationships.. Joystiq is not included in the review template.
• Electronic Gaming Monthly and Famitsu isn't used anywhere besides the template. Since the template is used to support the text it should be removed.
• PlayStation Official Magazine'​s David Meikleham found that the game's pacing contributed to the improvement of the story - Could have some very very brief explanation on how the pacing of this game contributed to the story.
• while Kelly of Computer and Video Games enjoyed the variety in approaching them Them - who?
• Destructoid's Sterling felt that game was visually impressive, but that technical issues left a negative impact on the visuals - Can be slightly expanded on what technical issues he had encountered.
• Kelly of Computer and Video Games found that the environmental audio impacted gameplay - Positively or negatively?
• That sales section is impressive. However, you can also wiklink all those nations mentioned.
• The award section is a bit difficult to read because of all those citations.
• they both won the award from BAFTA - I assume not everybody know what BAFTA, so it should be wikilinked again, or add (BAFTA) next to the British Academy Video Games Awards, in the first paragraph of the award section.
• GameTrailers and Giant Bomb was mentioned twice in the best story part.

References

• Some citations seems to be in the middle of a sentence instead of the end of a sentence.
• I don't think things like "IGN staff" (or "Staff, IGN") is needed when the author isn't stated.
• A lot of sources came from PlayStation.Blog, which is a primary source. Is there any replacement for them?
• A minor remark that the url of the official page has changes a bit, to "http://www.thelastofus.playstation.com/" instead of simply "http://thelastofus.com/"
• No dead link. All source archived.

Image

• The owner of the image File:Video Game Cover - The Last of Us.jpg should be Sony Computer Entertainment instead of Naughty Dog.
• In File:Bruce Straley PAX Prime 2014.jpg. I think the word "appointed" will be better than "chosen"
• The Non-free rationale template for File:The Last of Us visuals.jpg needs some cleanup.

Review

It is a very comprehensive and well-written article. I personally is impressed. Not much problems can be found besides those minor issues. So, here is the review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and y:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I am going to put this on hold . When all these extremely small and minor issues are addressed. The article should be good to go. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, AdrianGamer! I've gone through and fixed most of your concerns, though I'd like to address some things:

• I'm not really sure how to further explain the dynamic cover system; I believed that the rest of the sentence already did so, but I must be wrong.
• I understand why you'd like to create a "Release" section, but is there any real need to? Personally, I like it without it (like on Grand Theft Auto V), though I'll be happy to create it if you feel it's necessary.
• I'm very close to nearing completion on creating an article for The Last of Us: Left Behind, which is why it is wiki-linked (to save myself going through and wiki-linking it afterwards), though I can remove this if it's easier.
• If you're referring to me wiki-linking all of the nations in the "Sales" section (such as "France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden..."), then I'm not sure if that's necessary. I haven't seen anything similar before on Wikipedia.
• I realise the "Awards" section looks a bit crowded with the citations, but we can't really do anything about that.
• There are no guidelines stating that citations are required to be placed at the end of a sentence; I believe all citations are placed appropriately throughout the article, with each fact accompanied by a suitable reference.
• I've gone through and replaced some of the PlayStation Blog references, but some are very difficult to find suitable replacements for.

If you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 07:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Great! Then I think the article is good to go! The Last of Us promoted to AdrianGamer (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"most awarded game in history"

This should be taken out. The citation of this is for Dualshockers, and they got it from a Blogspot. The Blogspot's claim that The Last Of Us is the most awarded game of all time is based on their criteria of what counts for an award, and The Last Of Us being the most awarded is variable depending on the criteria, The Last Of Us being the most awarded game isn't fact. If the statement doesn't get taken out or altered, the Blogspot's criteria should be presented. The statement could be altered to be "one of the most awarded games". Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ellen Page controversy

Isn't this the game which allegedly "stole" Ellen Page's likeness? 90.229.34.175 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Naughty Dog modified Ellie's appearance to more closely resemble Ashley Johnson's (her voice actress) looks and personality prior to release and before the statements by Ellen Page. Reference http://thelastofus.wikia.com/wiki/Ellie -- See bottom "Design & Appearance" and "Trivia" bullet #6.

That said, yes Ellie does appear to resemble Ellen Page and the names are close. However; if you do a slight morph of Ashley Johnson changing her hair color and bringing her age down to about 14 she also looks like Ellie.

More important, Naughty Dog and Ellen Page have both stated the comments were overblown http://www.sagamingportal.co.za/2013/06/26/naughty-dog-reacts-to-ellen-pages-the-last-of-us-comments/

174.102.151.214 (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This is important information that is related to the game and should be included. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Freshness For Lettuce: There wasn't much of a controversy there, and it wasn't particularly important. However, it's mentioned in the Ellie article, where it is more suitable. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 02:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It should definitely be put in, it is suitable for both pages, the "controversy" doesn't matter. They had to change her appearence after the game was already shown. It should be put in "Development". Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Freshness For Lettuce: According to Naughty Dog, Ellie's appearance was changed to make the character look more similar to Ashley Johnson, and had nothing to do with Ellen Page. Also, the entire discussion about Page was related to the character and design of Ellie, and had little to do with the development of the game itself, thus making it much more relevant in her own article instead of this one. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 03:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the "controversy", her change in appearence should be put under "Development". It clearly fits there and is good information. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

But it's the notability that we're talking about here; was the discussion/controversy really notable enough to mention on the main article? Personally, I don't think it is. Not to mention that it really had nothing to do with the development of the game. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not talking about the "discussion/controversy", I am talking about their alteration to her during development, which is good information for "Development". The change in her appearence is significantly shown throughout promotional content, you should be able to find out that her appearence was changed on Wikipedia on the main page of The Last Of Us. You are fine with these though: "The gameplay introduced difficulty to the team, as they felt that every mechanic required thorough analysis"; "The game's user interface design also underwent various iterations throughout development"; "The sexuality of the character Bill, portrayed by W. Earl Brown, was originally left vague in the script, but later altered to further reflect his homosexuality"? Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that makes more sense; sorry, I mustn't have read your previous messages properly. However, I still don't really think the information would fit anywhere in the "Development" section, nor would it enhance the reader's knowledge on the topic. In both the Development and Ellie articles, they fact is supported by a picture, which helps by showing the development of the character, whereas I don't think it would particularly fit in the main article. I should also mention that the examples that you gave were included in the "Development" section as they are sentences that summarise entire paragraphs of the Development article, while the alteration of Ellie's character only has a brief mention in the Development article. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I edited my previous comment, you should reread it. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware that was what you meant. To avoid any more silly arguments (and because it really was a good suggestion in the first place), I've added it to the article. I tried to phase it in a way that works with the rest of the paragraph. Thanks for your suggestions! – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Splitting The Last of Us Part II

I see this as an uncontroversial split. The game has official been announced with a release trailer. There is overwhelming sources regarding this and the sequel clearly pass GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no information regarding gameplay, and very little regarding development. The game doesn't even have a release year yet; while there may be a lot of sources on the topic, there's not really enough information to warrant a separate article—all information can be sufficiently covered in the main article. – Rhain ☔ 10:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You're saying right after official announcement with trailer, over a 100 sources, there is not enough information? Right now is the time people would be looking for information regarding the game. The article need massive expansion not merging. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

All those sources are mainly regarding the trailer, or regarding fan theories. Unless you want an article about a frame-by-frame analysis of the teaser trailer, there is no need to split right now. By creating a separate article at the moment, we would be telling people that a sequel has been confirmed, and that there's a trailer out there; that's nothing but trivial. -- ChamithN (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, nevermind. I just noticed that a separate article has been created already. Although it only consists of the lead right now, I guess it'll be a good article in due time. -- ChamithN (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Lots of sources does not mean lots of information when they're all saying the same thing. ChamithN echoes my concerns perfectly; the article is pretty pointless at this stage. Everything about the sequel should stay on this main page, and can be split appropriately when the right time comes. – Rhain ☔ 20:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Build it summary style and split it only when the content demands it. There isn't enough material right now to justify the split. Write the content before wasting each other's time. Also, by my eye, more video game reliable sources use "2" than the Roman numeral ("II"). czar 01:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• I support splitting it now. This is one of the highest profile future releases in existence - it obviously meets the notability guidelines with coverage on its reveal alone. If there isn't enough content yet, there will be shortly. It's a waste of time to merge it back - better to work on expanding and be ready for future expansions. Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

While I agree it meets notability guidelines, I simply don't think there's enough content to warrant a split yet; "there will be shortly" sounds like WP:CRYSTAL—we've no idea when Naughty Dog are going to reveal more about the game, especially considering they're probably rather focused on the development and marketing of Uncharted: The Lost Legacy for the time being. The information that currently exists is nothing that can't be covered in a short paragraph in the Sequel section, and can be split when the need arises. – Rhain ☔ 01:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the point in this approach where there's no possible scenario where the article won't expand though. With a game of this capacity, every path forward is going to lead to more coverage. Even if it was cancelled tomorrow, that would lead to endless further coverage on the game, with "What went wrong?" and "explanations from the developers" type articles. When notability already easily achieved, and coverage coming no matter what, it's just a waste of everyone's time to merge it back. (And that not even counting how much time will be wasted with newbies splitting it out under a new name every couple if weeks, and the arguments that will keep erupting over this.) I'd understand your CRYSTAL concerns if notability wasn't achieved yet, but it is, and with nothing preventing notable stub class articles, it's a waste of time and effort to enforce and maintain keeping them separate. Sergecross73 msg me 03:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on The Last of Us. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/ps3?sort=desc&view=condensed
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a643229/maisie-williams-on-the-last-of-us-movie-its-very-very-early-days/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Wq4Wvs6V?url=http://epn.tv/all/spotlight/the-electric-playgrounds-best-of-e3-winners/ to http://epn.tv/all/spotlight/the-electric-playgrounds-best-of-e3-winners/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6WqS7T2fT?url=http://gaygamer.net/2013/09/the-last-of-us-has-a-gay-character-really/ to http://gaygamer.net/2013/09/the-last-of-us-has-a-gay-character-really/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/11/16/producer-sam-raimi-says-the-last-of-us-movie-stuck-at-a-standstill
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?sort=desc&year_selected=2013
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6WqKLZID9?url=http://www.sell.fr/top/index/week/24/year/2013 to http://www.sell.fr/top/index/week/24/year/2013
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p%2Fsoftware%2Fire%2Farchive%2Findex_test.jsp&ct=210015&arch=t&lyr=2013&year=2013&week=24

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Last of Us. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Wq7wb9Lk?url=http://www.naughtydog.com/site/post/the_last_of_us_nightmare_bundle_available_this_week/ to http://www.naughtydog.com/site/post/the_last_of_us_nightmare_bundle_available_this_week/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Cast Listing

Shouldn't there be a dedicated section of the article for the cast, as there is for most wikipedia articles on films/tv shows? Nerdswears (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Cast lists are generally considered inappropriate for video games, per WP:VGSCOPE #11. Instead, the actors are listed in prose (for this article, in the Plot section). – Rhain ☔ 06:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Genres in lead

Let's not overload the lead sentence with genres. The main genre is sufficient. WP:FILM has a specific policy to do this - I think WP:VG should too. Popcornduff (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to change WP:VG's policies I suggest going to them directly through a WP:PROPOSAL. In general, it is best to avoid bloat but in this situation I think it is valid to include survival-horror along with the fact it is action-adventure considering how important the survival-horror element is to the game. Spy-cicle (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

There is always an urge to stuff the lead with every genre a game (or film) plausibly encompasses, and it's always bloat. The lead sentence should give a basic, fundamental definition of the subject, and the "survival horror" part doesn't meet that need. Primary genre is enough - this was the consensus when it was discussed a while ago. Popcornduff (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Although in a lot of cases it is certainly better to reduce the number of genres to one in the lead this is one such example where having two genres is somewhat necessary considering how much the survival horror aspect is central to the game. Not to mention the fact this passed GA [6] [7] and FA [8] [9] like this.Spy-cicle (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The better way to say that is to say "The Last of Us is an action-adventure video game with elements of the survivor horror genre", since the game does not well fit into that latter category. --Masem (t) 13:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good move either - not for the lead sentence. We must keep the first sentence simple and concise, putting the fundamental elements up first. We can mention that it incorporates elements of other genres etc later in the lead maybe, but frontloading the lead sentence is a bad move, a misguided attempt to cover all bases. Popcornduff (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Popcornduff, especially in this case as survival horror is essentially a subgenre of action adventure, making the current lead sentence somewhat redundant. The survival horror aspect is sufficiently mentioned in the infobox, gameplay section, and reception section, so I don't see the harm in describing the game with a slightly broader stroke in the lead sentence.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Last of Us Team at BAFTAs.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Part II Characters

I've started a discussion at Talk:List of The Last of Us characters regarding the addition of Part II characters to the existing list. Would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Playable characters

The intro says players control Joel; I would like to change this to state that players primarily control Joel, as you play as Ellie and Sarah during some portions of the game. Furthermore, the "gameplay" section of the article claims that players control Ellie throughout the Winter chapter, which is untrue; players briefly control Joel during this segment as well. LordNimon (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Neither the sentences in the lead nor Gameplay are incorrect. "Players control Joel" is true, and the additional word doesn't really add anything; something like "Players only control Joel" would be incorrect. Similarly, "The player also controls Ellie throughout the game's winter segment" is true, because Ellie is playable in that section, the word "throughout" implies that it is intermittent. – Rhain ☔ 03:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the clarification!--LordNimon (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

David "turning" hostile

I'm struggling to think of an alternative way to phrase this (also taking into account the right amount of "she/her" and "Ellie" for flow), but the use of "David turns hostile after revealing the [...]" has always bugged me. In my opinion, David never suddenly "turned" hostile: he revealed information to Ellie which immediately painted him as a threat (but did not threaten or attack her) and presumably always intended to recruit her into his group. This was not a character that, for example, "turned hostile" to a party after learning of new information that meant they felt compelled to. Similarly, and perhaps this is how the prose should be written when chronicling the journey of protagonists, but the act of David turning hostile is only how Ellie—one such protagonist—experienced the situation, rather than how it was seen through the eyes of another character, or else written from a neutral point of view. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The way he says it does feel somewhat hostile, but I suppose that's up for interpretation. I think the sentences still need to be phrased to make it clear that David's revelation basically turns him into an antagonist, so I've rephrased to state that Ellie becomes hostile instead; I think the following sentences make it even clearer that they are now enemies. Feel free to adjust or let me know your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 23:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Seperate Wikipedia Page for The Last of Us Part I Remake

Since The Last of Us Part I is a remake of the 2013 original that is built from the ground up, should we make a seperate Wikipedia page for the PS5 Remake? Shadow of the Colossus' 2018 remake for the PS4 got its own Wikipedia page in order to differentiate from the 2005 original on PS2 (which got an HD Remaster for PS3 bundled with Ico). DrSanic (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@DrSanic: There's a draft of a separate article, but I currently don't think there's enough information to justify a split. Shadow of the Colossus has the benefit of being developed by a completely new team almost 13 years later, representing a significant difference; The Last of Us Part I is being developed by the same team (some different people, but same team overall) 9 years later, with less of a difference from the original. I'm certainly willing to reevaluate once we're closer to release—I assume we'll get more gameplay and development information during the marketing campaign—but for now I don't think we need a split. – Rhain ☔ 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

i am ok with tlou remastered merged with the last of us PS3., its still the same game upscaled to 1080p and 60 fps

but, he last of us part 1 is not original the last of us !!!

please make a separate article ! Mencarikebenaran (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Calm down, Menc. As Rhain said a draft is already in place and can be updated and elevated to article when and if it's worth. I mostly agree the remake can have its own article (e.g. reworked workbenches for weapon modding), however it won't be the time for it up until reviews are out at least, which should happen shortly before release. Lone Internaut (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)