Last of Us 2 is PS4's most completed game. Red Dead Redemption 2 at the bottom of the list.

With how generous the checkpoints were, this game is only playable on Survivor. Hard in TLOU2 is easier than Normal in TLOU1. Shit's casual as hell, they tried to please the masses. After beating it on survivor on my first playthough, i expected Survivor+ to be a real challenge like Grounded was in TLOU1, but it was all fake news because Survivor+ on NG+ was much easier than Survivor on NG, and that wasn't hard to begin with.

Lol, dude. Remnant is a good game, but it was basically made for those that can't hang with the difficulty of Dark Souls, the game that it borrows heavily from. And personally I don't find TLoU2 hard at all (unless you're playing on Grounded, but even that's not that bad). I was speaking for others.

C'mon now you haven't played Remnant, so you don't know how hard it is.

Its more gun based whereas Dark Souls is melee based and boring.

Oh i'm sorry if i hurt your masculinity by saying you found LOU2 hard, its ok some people are just better at games :)

What? Yeah, I've played it, dude. I own it. It kind of reminds me of the Lara Croft games, funny enough (the isometric ones). The bosses are artificially difficult due to all the freakin' adds. The mechanics borrow HEAVILY from DS....to the point that you could call it a kind of DS with gats. Again, it's a good game, but it doesn't touch DS in terms of difficulty. It really feels like they wanted to make a Souls-esque for people that get their butts kicked in Souls.

And I've beat TLoU2 on Grounded. Again, it's not that bad. But it's certainly not easy.

@subspecies_ii: Wait lets back up as we've skipped over a few things. first you say normal is not that easy, then you say "you're speaking for other people" and now not even hard is that hard for you lol.

You should really keep a track of what you're saying.

While Remnant may borrow from DS, Remnant is a better game because its not stuck with melee.

Oh and many people find DS games to be not that difficult, so it might be your skill level (or lack there of) that makes the game out to be harder than it actually is, just saying lol.

But anyway most who have completed the game did so on easy, no doubt.

Objectively, dude. Objectively. Normal is not easy.

Subjectively, pretty easy. Grounded is tough, but not impossible. TLoU1 grounded was worse, less balanced. Again--subjectively. Do you know what that means?

As for the rest, you're just baiting. And you've never played a single DS game.

I enjoy sandbox-like games as well, as you seem to treat Fallout 4. But I prefer it in genres like city builders or management games, where you actually get to craft the world. With story-driven games, I think it is a bit different, for me at least.

My main problem with these huge open world games is that, outside of the game world's size, there really is not anything else impressive about them. As the game world expands, all the other content is stretched thin over that world. Worse, pointless "filler" seems to get added to make it appear meaningful while having the opposite effect.

This is why The Outer Worlds was such a breath of fresh air. It was concise and well crafted. It was not a single huge game world, but a collection of medium-sized instanced worlds to explore.

You felt like you could take everything in and enjoy it, then move on before the play turned into work as it does with larger open-world games.

And when you finished after 20 hours instead of 100? You can make a new character and play the game over, doing it in an entirely different fashion.

I just prefer a well-crafted tasting menu to a massive mediocre buffet.

No when you say you're speaking on behalf of other people, you're suggesting you know, when in fact you don't.

Stop making out like DS games are super hard when judging by their stats (on Xbox) they're not even that hard at all. Now that might be a different story on PS, because well you guys aren't really used to playing hard games lol.

Fair enough. I shouldn't talk for others. So I'll just leave it at objective/subjective and remove the opposing element. Done.

As for Soulsborne (Demon's, Dark, Bloodborne), they're hard. Once you learn the patterns and play by the rules, they become manageable, to the point that with practice you can play the games without dying (if you're gud). Then jump into NG+ and do it all over again. In the beginning, and for a while, everyone dies. Then you learn. That's how the games work.

Now Sekiro, ooh boy. That's another story. Freaking tough game.

RDR2 was ludo. If it wasn't for this board, I'd forget TLOU2 exists.

@Pedro: I'm not sure I follow your logic? Aren't those "long" games also some of their top sellers? I understand a developer being sad that a lot of their hard work wasn't even seen, but they got their money either way, right?

Maybe because people thought the game would get better as the game progressed/ended

Lol they were wrong

Not surprising at all. It's likely the GOTY, and makes sense that other behemoths like FFVII Remake (pun intended) and God of War also sit at the top of the list.

Remnant is similar as you die a LOT early on, but there is no patterns to follow as such which you know if you've played it. On that did you finish Remnant?

Remnant relies on getting better gear/mods etc.

Open world games are notorious to finish.

You get swamped with all the side objectives and exploration. And in games it's all about keeping you engaged.

RDR2 couldn't keep me as interested as Spiderman or Horizon did.

So the source is your ass? Gotcha.

This exactly, I don't understand this phenomenon with gamers. A new game comes out, then in a couple of weeks it's old news? Where's a new game to play? You're de-valuing your games this way. I used to be this way, but I've stopped. I was spending way too much money on games I didn't finish, and I wasn't getting the most out of my games, especially the ones I liked.

It's only going to get worse with services like Game Pass. Gamers will spend more time browsing for games to play rather than playing..................just like the Netflix joke

it's @i_p_daily, were you expecting better? 😁

Anywhere between 20 and 40 hours... Ha. It took me 42 hours to complete The Last of US 2, and 39 hours on my second run (NG+) I played on the hardest difficulty though of course. still over 80 hours for two play throughs is insane value for this type of game. Its literally more time than I spent on the entire Uncharted quadrilogy + The Last of Us 1.

And I did actually notice this fact before reading the article that The Last of Us 2 has one of the highest completion ratios. It was at 30% when I completed it the first time and 50% when I completed it the second time. Now it's almost 60%, for a game that can take over 40 hours is simply insane. I don't think there is any other game out there with as high completion rate, even though they are 1/2 or even 1/4 of the length. (some even 1/8th!)

Also, Red Dead Redemption II is pretty much the only open world game except for Metal Gear Solid V that I have completed.

Oblivion, Skyrim, RDR1, GTA:VC, GTA:SA, GTA V I loved all those games, in fact 500 hours in Oblivion and 300 or so in Skyrim. But I never completed any of them. Same with Assassin's Creed games and Far Cry games. I get bored before the half way mark.

@mrbojangles25: Well to be fair I know people that have thrown 1000+ hours in Oblivion and Skyrim and not completed them.

@i_p_daily said:

@gifford38 said:

@i_p_daily said:

Just further cements Sony's games as easy, short & for casuals, in other words not worth the asking price.

TCHBO.

short games? these are just story not side quest

hzd 60 hours story

days gone 60 hours story

spiderman 20 hours story

last of us 2 20 hours story

god of war 20 hours story

death stranded 40-60 hours

red dead 40-60 hours

so red dead is a short game then

sony has not a made a short game this gen they been huge open worlds.

20 hours is not short.

gears 5 is 11 hours

crackdown 3 12 hours

oni 8 hours

thses are short games.

so you still think sony first party games have been short this gen? because i proved you wrong.

so ps4 being a casual box a bad thing? just means sony is doing it right. the wii last gen was casual system and so was the 360 which was xbox best gen they had. you want that. the more casuals the more sales = more games and more support. look how much more xbox bought exclusives and time exclusives during the 360 gen.

you don't think xbox wants the casual market using gamepass? why do you think there trying to get it the mobile phone?

ps5 if its the casual system of choice again sony will win again.

look how much sony is doing with that money.

buying exclusives, buying more studios

heck they hired so many people that there splitting up there teams in two.

look at insomniac working on ratchet and clank and miles.

guerrilla games hzd2, while help on death stranded and now is working with mark making a launch title they have not told us yet.

naughty dog last of us 2 while there other team that is unknown developer is working uncharted.

I mean, there are patterns, or at least set state pieces (I know re-rolling your world can change states to some extent). The major variation comes with items and such, but bosses are thrown in too, and that's cool, but I don't really know to what extent this plays out. Usually I don't care for procedural generation but I can see what the devs were doing here, which is differentiating from the general Souls formula. DS, for instance, relies heavily on static boss encounters. The bosses in DS are gatekeepers, and you must play by their rules if you expect to move on. In Remnant they scrapped this concept and went with a kind of fluid world build in terms of bosses and a few other aspects, from what I can tell. If it was true full-blown procedural you'd be getting drastically different world builds, but that's not the case here. As far as procedural goes, it does pop up in Souls stuff here and there. In Bloodborne, for instance with the Chalice Dungeons. So it's not like Soulsborne didn't use the method either to some extent. It's just not a main aspect of those games like it is arguably with Remnant. As far as the gear and stuff goes, I like it. It's not some endless loot generator. The items all seem to be thoughtful and unique.

I haven't played Remnant too much, so no, I haven't beat it. For whatever reason I like this game in co-op, while I HATE and actively avoid any and all Soulsborne co-op (I do participate in PvP though). I only have one person I play co-op with, and he's on tour (military), so we hardly ever play together. But when we do it's a lot of fun.

@robert_sparkes: Its low, but its normal for 60+ hour games like RDR2 to only have ≈ 20-25% completion rate, even when they are absolute GOTY masterpieces.

@fedor:The Last of Us 2 is a 40 hour game, not 20-25.

RDR2 60 hour story, but I spent about 85 hours on it with side quests / hunting / mini-games / exploring etc.

Maybe for people who are trash at games.

Yeah I get it, I've played Factorio for like 400+ hours and haven't come close to launching the rocket. I've played Cities: Skylines for hundreds of hours and never filled a map more than 30% with anything. I've spent thousands of hours among all the various Civilization games and never played it on anything harder than the easiest setting. And so on and so forth.

I get the appeal of "endless" games.

I just feel with RDR2 and it's kind there is an end to it and while you should enjoy the journey, there is a goal there that you need to get to.

I'm not telling anyone how to play, this is more a critique of development: I just think that artificially lengthening the game experience makes it worse, not better.

More people have watched LoU2 on YouTube than have paid for a copy.

The source is Sony's easy first party games and the fact that your fanbase has the most casuals. I'm betting that you 2 beat it on easy, that's IF you have bought the game at all, well did you???

@subspecies_ii: I've put 200hrs+ into Remnant and done every world multiple times and done every boss multiple times, and beat them in different ways to get the mods/weapons for killing them one way to killing them another way to get a trait.

I've played 95% solo because i felt that playing the campaign in co-op made the game easier. However i mostly play survival in co-op as the enemy levels up every 6mins, and you need to play in co-op as for one person gets the loot while the others take out the enemies.

I've never played a DS game as i'm not a swordy (is that a word?) guy, now i don't mind melee, but for me i need more than just melee.

Anyway you should try and beat Remnant as some of the latter bosses are a real pain in the arse, but very satisfying :)

I politely disagree. I finished this game on Hard the first time and its anything but casual.

If you're careless with your stealth play then you will be found out very quickly and enemies can soon overwhelm you.

It also depends on how you choose to play the game. If you blast your way through levels and don't care about taking a lot of damage or being detected then it might be comfortable.

For me, the tension is getting through areas without being seen or having limited casualties. Given how good the AI is on Hard that is not always an easy task.

The only argument for this being an easier game than the first one is because mechanically its a lot smoother and offers more options for various play styles.

Also, if you found the game too easy on Hard you could have always increased it while playing or customised your difficulty setting.

@biggest_loser: The thing is to constantly reposition when spotted. Always have shotty on you in case you have multiple human npc's flanking. I am not a big fan of stealth games, so i wasn't playing this purely sealthy, but at the same time, if there's a high amount of enemies, going in guns blazing would be kinda mongoloid. When you're constantly repositioning behind cover or into grass, ai has a hard time. Being able to run and spam dodges against the infected is another thing that made the game easier than it should have been. And lets not forget how nerfed clickers are in this one.

I didn't even try Hard, played maxed difficulty from the get go (which is Survivor). Then Survivor+ on NG+ which was even easier because of all the upgrades and weapon you have. But i do see Survivor+ to be difficult if you're doing it in NG instead of NG+.

That's kind of weird that Red Dead is so low, I personally pushed straight through the story and was less occupied with side stuff. I wanted to see what would happen next. I thought it was pretty compelling. I admit the epilogue went on a bit long, but I was engrossed by it still.

Gotta finish quick so you could sell em. :)

You're right as they are one & done games, finish them quick trade it in for something else.

No MP, so no need in keeping them.

@i_p_daily: are you doubting my cow authenticity?

That's true of most any game these days.