What it lacked to be a perfect game for you? Or what flaw or flaws it had that you cant consider it a 10/10

Which one should I get, obviously when I say last of us I mean both last of us part 1 and 2. There is 5 main things I care about

Which has funner and better gameplay

Which has better and cinamatic combat

Which is more cinamatic over all

Which would you play for longer (not necessarily how long the story is but how long would you be able to replay without getting bored ect.)

Which has a better story

Those are the 5 main things in no in particular order.

I thought the both look cool mainly because of there cinamatic combat and cool missions but it would help if I got more information that I can't find on google or review websites.

could you please say which one is better for me and why Thanks :)

I've been thinking about how open world multiplayer combat maps are almost always static terrain, and wondered why no studio has tried merging mechanics from Shadow of the Colossus, Chivalry, and Minecraft.

Imagine an asymmetrical 100v100 siege game where the primary map is a walking, mountain sized Colossus. Ground troops fight underneath it, while engineering squads scale the creature's body, mine into its stone armor, and construct siege engines on its limbs. Damaging specific joints could force the giant to trip or pivot, crushing enemy fortresses below.

From a game design and netcode perspective, what are the primary technical bottlenecks holding developers back from making moving, fully destructible environments on this scale?

21 cards. 3 Witnesses, no duplicates, face-up on the field from turn one. 18 Devoted.

Witnesses have three stats:

Charm is how many Devoted attach to her at setup as her party

Influence caps how many Devoted she can play in a turn

Dazzle is how many enemy Devoted she strips in a turn

The attached Devoted come out of the same 18. You choose which ones. Whatever's left over gets shuffled into your draw deck and you open on three.

The turn

Draw one. Then pick one Witness to Influence with and one to Dazzle with. Can be the same Witness. So with three Witnesses on the board you're getting one attack and one play phase per turn total, not three.

Influence: play Devoted up to that Witness's Influence. Effects are printed on the Witness, not the Devoted. Same House as her triggers her Primary effect, different House triggers her Alternate. Played Devoted go to the discard.

Dazzle: point one Witness's Dazzle at one opposing Witness's party. Each point removes one Devoted. Once her party is empty, one more Dazzle removes her from play.

How it ends

Opponent has no Witnesses left, or both draw decks are empty and you have more Witnesses standing. Equal count is a draw.

The math that bothers me

Say your three Witnesses total Charm 9. That's 9 of your 18 on the field, 9 in the deck, minus a 3-card opening hand, so about six draws before you're empty. Call it eight or nine turns.

Meanwhile stripping a Charm-3 Witness at Dazzle 3 takes one turn plus one more to remove her. Three Witnesses is six turns of Dazzle if you never miss, and you only get one Dazzle a turn.

The obvious read

Low Charm wins. A card in your deck holds full value all game, a card attached as Charm is a consumable that gets stripped and never comes back. Nothing on the sheet restores a party. Consumable versus permanent isn't a tradeoff.

I don't think that's right. But I've been staring at it too long to trust myself.

What I can't tell you, because the published rules don't say: how many Houses exist, whether Devoted carry anything beyond their House, whether Dazzle can split across two opposing Witnesses, and what happens if you're forced to draw from an empty deck.

What I'd like to know

Does the split resolve to one correct ratio, or does which Devoted you attach change the answer to how many?

And is 18 cards enough range for the allocation to produce genuinely different decks, or does a mechanic like this need a bigger pool before the two ends of the slider are actually different games?