The Last of Us: Dan Connor’s Original PS3 Review

From the archive · Preservation edition

Original coverage: Dan Connor. Publication date not verified; capture December 11, 2013.

This newly written, condensed edition preserves the argument of the recovered Geekenstein article. It is not the full original text or a new firsthand review. Illustrations are omitted.

The original PlayStation 3 experience

Dan Connor’s recovered review considered the original PlayStation 3 release of The Last of Us. Its strongest praise went to the relationship between Joel and Ellie and to the performances that made their journey convincing. Connor had reservations about both the familiar story outline and parts of multiplayer. This is a condensed preservation edition of that written review, not a new assessment of a remake, remaster or television adaptation.

Characters within a familiar outline

Connor described a journey through a collapsed society, following Joel and Ellie across changing seasons. He did not find the broad premise especially surprising. Dialogue, acting and the gradual development of the central relationship supplied the distinction he valued. He also appreciated the attention given to ordinary survivors and the compromises they made. The infected were a source of danger, but the review’s interest was not limited to monsters. This account remains light on plot revelations and does not reproduce the original writer’s speculation about real-world disease.

Scarcity changes the encounter

Limited ammunition and other supplies shaped Connor’s account of play. Watching enemies, planning a route and choosing when to remain unnoticed could matter more than immediately attacking. A situation could become dangerous as threats converged, making preparation valuable. Crafting carried its own pressure because it did not pause the surrounding action. Materials could serve competing needs, such as recovery or a thrown incendiary weapon. Spending supplies therefore affected later options. Upgrade benches and scavenging contributed to that resource-management rhythm. Connor found those systems more effective when decisions had consequences than when an encounter could be solved without thinking about the next one.

A directed story

The review distinguished the campaign’s linear narrative from a game that asks players to choose major story outcomes. Its emotional effect came from inhabiting an authored journey rather than selecting a different ending. Connor’s comparisons with other narrative games were about that distinction. His hope that the game might influence future work was an expectation, not proof of how subsequent developers would respond.

Multiplayer: frustration and an appealing longer game

Connor’s multiplayer response was more divided. He reported frustration with camera behavior around cover, scarce ammunition and being tied to a selected class during a match. Revivals did not consistently rescue teammates in his experience. Those observations describe his sessions, not a new balance study. He was more interested in the persistent survivor-camp layer associated with the Hunter and Firefly sides. Match activity fed into tasks and the welfare of a camp, giving individual contests a longer context. That broader structure offered a reason to return even when moment-to-moment multiplayer disappointed him. The final historical verdict therefore separates a compelling character-led campaign from an uneven personal response to online play. Current server availability is not established by this archive page.

Continue reading

• Assassin’s Creed III: ambition and reliability in another console review
• Borderlands 2: a different cooperative-game perspective
• Browse the games archive

Geekenstein and KLXCards are companion projects under the same ownership. Attribution, project context and corrections · Complete archive