Support NeoGAF

[razgriz417]

For Uncharted, it's the experience/story (the story in UC1 and UC2 are excellent) and tight controls. The puzzles are lite and easy but still kind of enjoyable. You really play it just for Drake and his story; gameplay just supports it and makes it fun to go through. It's pure fun, it knows what kind of game it is.

I can't speak for Tomb Raider though. Honestly, TR follows more along what other games are doing, not Uncharted specifically. It's a "checking boxes" game while Uncharted just did what it was known for since its inception: capturing the cinematic experience in a video game with enjoyable/solid gameplay and a nice story with great characters.

Uncharted at least deserves a try. I wouldn't suggest other games that bloat themselves with all these extraneous and arbitrary features. It really clouds or fogs up what's good about the game or for that matter, its identity.

agreed, I've always played Uncharted for the well defined characters and humor. The combat isn't all that great to me but the believable character interactions and banter is what sells the game for me

 

[shungokusatsu]

What's with that attitude? The Uncharted series has been excellent and, perhaps, better than anything with the name Tomb Raider on it.

Why drag Uncharted into this anyways?

Not sure what it really has to do with the media, but I think this is a big win for 360 fans since they'll finally have an Uncharted game. Now it all makes sense why MS jumped on the game for timed DLC and advertising rights.

I wish there were some PC vs. 360/PS3 comparisons.

Can't decide whether or not to use the CAGROCKS coupon on Amazon for Sim City & then the GMG coupon on this or the opposite. Sim City also has a $20 credit if you get the box version. Decisions, decisions.

Same. In particular I want to know if the PS3 version has any issues. Has there been any PS3 footage shown?

 

[Fezan]

Finally another good action adventure game beside uncharted

 

[Paul Alexander]

I think suggesting that everyone is paid off is ludicrous. But honestly game reviewers tend to have an awful lot of power when it comes to the success of a game, assuming everyone is clean as a whistle is equally ludicrous.

I think the amount of influence game reviewers have on a review varies wildly game to game, especially if the game is a storied IP with colossal brand recognition.

But that's really besides the point. So reviewers can affect the outcome of a game's success - that's not in dispute. But that's not an argument for or against impropriety. Either show me some evidence that a game reviewer has been influenced by their contact or relationship with a game's publisher/developer, or chill with the bribery talk. Granting leeway to vague, unfalsifiable claims undercuts legitimate critiques of gaming publications' ethics and review standards.

 

[antitrop]

Only CVG mentions the game length. Did any other review mention the game's length? I'm looking through them but I didn't see it.

Rev3 said ~13 hours.

 

[Smelly Tramp]

I always expected this game to be good for what it was.

The whole hoopla caused by a few bad PR statements was completely childish and blown incredibly far out of proportion. People decided right then and there to shit on the game from a great height, no matter how it actually looked or played.

Glad it's getting amazing reviews, must feel rather good to be a Crystal Dynamics employee right now.

why? because brain dead modern reviewers keep giving out high scores to these bullshit, recycled collectathon games over and over again.

(coming from someone who just completed far cry 3 and thought it was horrifically boring).

 

[WrenchNinja]

More boring than the endless waves of bad guys in Uncharted? I doubt it...

what endless waves

 

[Vire]

Genuinely surprised by these reviews.

Congrats to Crystal Dynamics. That's very impressive...

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

Rev3 said ~13 hours.

Cool. Sounds good enough for me. And probably could be longer if you explore everything.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

Eurogamer:

"The problem with Tomb Raider is not that it's trying to do something new. The problem is it's trying to do what everyone else is doing.

It succeeds in that aim. The boxes can be ticked, several times over - collectables, upgrade systems, big fat guns, blood and gore, pretty graphics, set pieces, boss battles, cut-scenes where the characters' lip movements almost match what they are saying, multiplayer modes, art galleries, quick-time events, more collectables. All of these tricks are pulled off with competence and polish."

Edge:

"It’s got the kill-confirming XP popup of Call Of Duty; the gentle, optional stealth of an Assassin’s Creed; and Batman’s Detective mode. It’s got the linear, cinematic spectacle of Uncharted, with the narrative fleshed out by audiologs borrowed from BioShock. Platforming is Drake by way of Ezio Auditore, and combat borrows from, well, take your pick"

Rev3:

"incredibly over simplified. They rarely, if ever, extend beyond a single room and even with some of the more involved puzzles, the challenge seems to come more from precisely timed platforming than critical problem solving."

Shacknews:

"In the end, I enjoyed the Tomb Raider ride, but in a B-grade thriller sort of way. A lot of that has to do with the new direction it takes, which skews towards a much different and action-oriented balance of gameplay than its predecessors, and a script that can't quite bear the weight of the story's serious tone. There are a lot of exciting, cinematic moments and action to experience within, even though they come at the expense of the spirit of exploration and environmental puzzling the IP was originally built upon."

Gametrailers:

"A few things about the new Tomb Raider come across as wasted effort. The story of Lara’s transformation is sabotaged by the gameplay, and is frankly a little dorky, with an after-school special style multi-ethnic cast filled by lame sterotypes like angry black woman and scrap-happy Scotsman. Likewise a multiplayer mode, which nobody familiar with Tomb Raider would expect or even think to ask for, is competent but utterly unremarkable and requires underpowered newbies to grind for more effective weapons and perks to level a wonky playing field.

The payoff from this pre-packaged drama and live-target online practice barely amount to the value of a single, raidable tomb, and it’s easy to imagine the resources spent on these being better utlized to bloster the game’s strengths. The road to the triple-A summit hasn’t been reached in a single game, but there’s hope that Lara could reach greater heights in the inevitable sequel."




The game is being rewarded with too many high scores, and the content of each review just doesn't add up to the final score. S-E must have spent a shitload on bribes.

You should make a new post where you cherry-pick all of the good things they had to say. Then I bet the numbers would make more sense.

 

[Snkfanatic]

More boring than the endless waves of bad guys in Uncharted? I doubt it...

Not sure what endless waves you are talking about, I do agree that the combat could have been tuned down just a bit. You do need something besides walking around pretty environments, jumping from platform to platform, and solving puzzles by opening a notebook though...

 

[Salsa]

cool. Steam sales it is

 

[OriginofHysteria]

Part of me believes that the reason for this TR game being different from old ones is to tend to those who aren't familiar with Tomb Raider of the old and to possibly pick up new fans. I mean lets face it, modern games now aren't too complex and it does do a good job of being a 'modern' game.

Ill compare it to the Bond reboot of Casino Royale. That movie in tradition wasn't per se a Bond film and it didn't really follow the formula of the old films that gave the series its charm, but it still worked. That's what I'm seeing from this current Tomb Raider game. Its not a true Tomb Raider game but it looks like a damn good game. Since this is a reboot and everything i wouldn't be surprised if they slowly started easing back into the old formula of the TR games while still maintaining the new identity which this game has set forth.

 

[mdtauk]

I will be getting a free steam key for this game, but am really unsure about it. I loved Legend, Anniversary, and Underworld, and I worry this game will really move too far away from those ones.

I have not played Uncharted, nor am I interested in it, so...
Is Tomb Raider now Uncharted, and how does it compare to Underworld.

These are the questions I have for those reviewing it.

 

[derFeef]

cool. Steam sales it is

Isn't that true for every PC game you buy?

 

[Conor 419]

Eurogamer:

"The problem with Tomb Raider is not that it's trying to do something new. The problem is it's trying to do what everyone else is doing.

It succeeds in that aim. The boxes can be ticked, several times over - collectables, upgrade systems, big fat guns, blood and gore, pretty graphics, set pieces, boss battles, cut-scenes where the characters' lip movements almost match what they are saying, multiplayer modes, art galleries, quick-time events, more collectables. All of these tricks are pulled off with competence and polish."

Edge:

"It’s got the kill-confirming XP popup of Call Of Duty; the gentle, optional stealth of an Assassin’s Creed; and Batman’s Detective mode. It’s got the linear, cinematic spectacle of Uncharted, with the narrative fleshed out by audiologs borrowed from BioShock. Platforming is Drake by way of Ezio Auditore, and combat borrows from, well, take your pick"

Rev3:

"incredibly over simplified. They rarely, if ever, extend beyond a single room and even with some of the more involved puzzles, the challenge seems to come more from precisely timed platforming than critical problem solving."

Shacknews:

"In the end, I enjoyed the Tomb Raider ride, but in a B-grade thriller sort of way. A lot of that has to do with the new direction it takes, which skews towards a much different and action-oriented balance of gameplay than its predecessors, and a script that can't quite bear the weight of the story's serious tone. There are a lot of exciting, cinematic moments and action to experience within, even though they come at the expense of the spirit of exploration and environmental puzzling the IP was originally built upon."

Gametrailers:

"A few things about the new Tomb Raider come across as wasted effort. The story of Lara’s transformation is sabotaged by the gameplay, and is frankly a little dorky, with an after-school special style multi-ethnic cast filled by lame sterotypes like angry black woman and scrap-happy Scotsman. Likewise a multiplayer mode, which nobody familiar with Tomb Raider would expect or even think to ask for, is competent but utterly unremarkable and requires underpowered newbies to grind for more effective weapons and perks to level a wonky playing field.

The payoff from this pre-packaged drama and live-target online practice barely amount to the value of a single, raidable tomb, and it’s easy to imagine the resources spent on these being better utlized to bloster the game’s strengths. The road to the triple-A summit hasn’t been reached in a single game, but there’s hope that Lara could reach greater heights in the inevitable sequel."




The game is being rewarded with too many high scores, and the content of each review just doesn't add up to the final score. S-E must have spent a shitload on bribes.

You might want to read the whole reviews.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

More boring than the endless waves of bad guys in Uncharted? I doubt it...

Well, UC was built around that sorta gameplay as well, and it wasn't always horrendous, but spots like the fucking endless ship graveyard or interminable sandstorm gunfights in UC3 totally ruined the tension and pacing for me. Then again, most of UC3 felt sloppy to me in everything but presentation.

In all honesty, I like the bit I've seen where Lara can get stuck in traps and is stuck shooting upside down.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

Just saw. The CAGROCKS promotional credit is still in effect. 33 bucks on PC in Amazon. Steam activated. Not bad...

Thanks.

 

[Snkfanatic]

Just saw. The CAGROCKS promotional credit is still in effect. 33 bucks on PC in Amazon. Steam activated. Not bad...

Ya this is a good deal and I may jump on it.

 

[Sephzilla]

Just the quick and easy ones (I'll leave art/level design out, even though the club stage was the best level in the entire series, IMO);

- pacing and structure; DmC always kept things interesting by offering unique levels to go through. No backtracking (save for one level) and no repeated content. The previous games were notorious for these, and DmC put more thought and design in the levels than any other game in the series.

- flexibility; for the first time in the series, the expanded platforming controls made exploring for secrets and simply moving around the environments fun. In respect to combat, I felt DmC did a much better job with having the variety and flexibility in combat. DMC4 was the only other game in the series to try the all purpose approach with Dante, but that just came off sloppy in execution. The new approach to combat with mass crowds of enemies in DmC made the all purpose design more intuitive.

I have more, but those are just the ones that'll get a discussion going. This game is about on the same level as the other games, but yes it is weaker in a few areas. After being invested in this series since the beginning, I'd rate DmC as followed.

DMC3 = DMC1>>>DmC>>>DMC4>>>DMC2

Anyone who says this game is the worst of the series is full of it. Was it the perfect DMC game? No, but neither were the other games to be totally honest with you.

I guess for me I kind of miss some of the repeated environments/backtracking. That was an old staple from the old games (granted DMC4 took it too far), and it allowed for natural opportunities to gather missing items you couldn't get before. Whilst DmC more or less just forces you to replay certain missions in order to get things. Honestly, I missed the recurring bosses from old DMCs like Vergil, Phantom, etc. It made the demons you fought feel more powerful. DmC's bosses felt weak one-offs in comparison.

I'm torn on whether or not I liked DmC's platforming. Honestly, it's barely platforming at all. There's absolutely no challenge to it, no real timing is needed, no skill what so ever. Platforming in DmC is kind of a glorified QTE.

I didn't really think DmC's combat was more flexible. This is partially because the angel weapons were effectively pointless outside of fighting blue enemies, and the guns outside of kablooey were pretty worthless. The weapon-specific enemies actually discouraged variety and just padded out the length of fights I thought.

I'd totally like to discuss more, but I don't think we should hijack the Tomb Raider thread

 

[Revven]

You should make a new post where you cherry-pick all of the good things they had to say. Then I bet the numbers would make more sense.

But then the question becomes: DO those good things they mention outweigh the negatives? What makes a good game, a good game? It clearly can't be everything, as the reviewers knock the game for certain gameplay aspects while praising character and story. Do those last two things truly outweigh the gameplay problems mentioned?

It's why a score is bad for games. There's too many factors and subjectivity, in how you interpret the review and how the reviewer presents the review.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

Then again, most of UC3 felt sloppy to me in everything but presentation.

Couldn't agree with you more. I got to the ship level before I had to stop playing it. Combat was terrible.

 

[Paul Alexander]

I will be getting a free steam key for this game, but am really unsure about it. I loved Legend, Anniversary, and Underworld, and I worry this game will really move too far away from those ones.

I have not played Uncharted, nor am I interested in it, so...
Is Tomb Raider now Uncharted, and how does it compare to Underworld.

These are the questions I have for those reviewing it.

Based on my reading of the reviews, it seems far too open-ended and not reliant enough on cinematics and scripted sequences to warrant comparisons to Uncharted, and that gamers who loved the most recent TR incarnations and were hoping for more of the same are going to be let down.

 

[ColonelColon]

What would you rather do instead of shoot them, then?

How do you create tension in Uncharted without well-armed, plentiful adversaries? It would have to be a completely different game.

You focus on challenging platforming that isn't scripted and automated.

 

[ASIS]

Review scores are just the beginning. Of course overall they help consumers judge the quality of a game, but the actual fan reaction can always be interesting and in quite a few cases, quite polarizing. (see above)

I'm not saying TR is a bad game by any stretch of the imagination, (how would I know?) but just because it gets great reviews doesn't mean it's a done deal.

That's exactly what I'm talking about though, you may not have said it, but A LOT of people did.

 

[Derrick01]

You should make a new post where you cherry-pick all of the good things they had to say. Then I bet the numbers would make more sense.

I've read most of the big outlet reviews....many of them don't make any sense. They read like they wanted to give the game a 6 or worse but for whatever reason you want to come up with, didn't.

 

[antitrop]

You focus on challenging platforming that isn't scripted and automated.

So a new American Gladiators game with The Wall?

 

[Knux-Future]

I don't think any of the reviews have claimed it to be perfect.

GT for example (which really wasn't as negative as some said it was btw) 8.5 is a good game that has some flaws keeping it from being perfect.
It vaires from site to site with GT giving great games 9s normally.

 

[WrenchNinja]

You focus on challenging platforming that isn't scripted and automated.

But its not scripted and automated. Nor is it a plat former to begin with.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

But then the question becomes: DO those good things they mention outweigh the negatives? What makes a good game, a good game? It clearly can't be everything, as the reviewers knock the game for certain gameplay aspects while praising character and story. Do those last two things truly outweigh the gameplay problems mentioned?

It's why a score is bad for games. There's too many factors and subjectivity, in how you interpret the review and how the reviewer presents the review.

So what you're saying is that reviews are subjective....... huh.

I will fully agree with you about scores. These days it's just a marketing tool. The 5-star system is about as detailed of a score system as I want to see.

 

[Phatmac]

Glad to see all of these positive reviews! I'm eager to check it out.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

Sorry to ask this, but any mention of which console version is better?

 

[LowParry]

Hmm. Good reviews though with Bioshock so close....mehhhhh, it will have to wait. I'll eventually pick it up cause the wife loves the Tomb Raider games.

 

[Revven]

So what you're saying is that reviews are subjective....... huh.

I will fully agree with you about scores. These days it's just a marketing tool. The 5-star system is about as detailed of a score system as I want to see.

I'm saying the reviews deviate from the score. The score does not wind up reflecting what's written. The score, if anything, reflects their enjoyment more than their critical analysis (or lack thereof such analysis/review). It's really odd, especially when most folks just glance at the score, smile or frown, and then leave the page.

A review score should reflect the critical analysis, something of which most reviewers forego and just list things + what they liked. "This game has this stuff, I liked it, it's good." Great, how about going into more detail about what makes it good and why I should play it?

 

[ezekial45]

I'd totally like to discuss more, but I don't think we should hijack the Tomb Raider thread

By all means. The DmC thread is in the Gaming Community forum.

 

[daninthemix]

Sorry to ask this, but any mention of which console version is better?

If you wait a couple of days there'll doubtless be a Digital Foundry face-off on Eurogamer that answers your question comprehensively.

 

[Hoo-doo]

why? because brain dead modern reviewers keep giving out high scores to these bullshit, recycled collectathon games over and over again.

(coming from someone who just completed far cry 3 and thought it was horrifically boring).

Far Cry 3 is completely mediocre, I agree whole-heartedly.

But if you like cinematic and fun "popcorn" adventure games, this game looks to be right up your alley.

 

[Vire]

Just watched the GT review and I was really turned off by all the gratuitous violence. They really went overboard...

 

[Lusankya]

I've read most of the big outlet reviews....many of them don't make any sense. They read like they wanted to give the game a 6 or worse but for whatever reason you want to come up with, didn't.

I agree. I only watched the GameTrailer review up until now, but in the end I was really surprised they gave TR a 8.5. I mean, basically the whole time the reviewer is complaining.

Seriously, we have poor, young and innocent Lara during the story events and then *boom* she kills thousands of humans and animals with such unnecessary violence and kill moves, while getting XP for head shots and even more violent kills. WTF?

 

[Nokterian]

Oh boy i cannot wait untill everyone is playing it and is going to shit on this game what is bad since they will not say everything. Me on the other hand,not buying it. Gonna eat some popcorn and see the hate coming when people have it in there hands.

 

[Loxley]

This thread is amusing simply for the number of people who refuse to accept the ludicrous idea this game is actually decent. "The reviewers must have been paid off!" Oh give me a fucking break. I know a good chunk of GAF have spent last year constantly shitting on the game and were prepared to rip the game apart for being the heaping turd that it surely would be, but can't we just be glad that the game is apparently solid? I know it's disappointing and we were all waiting for a new game to sink our venomous fangs into since Colonial Marines is yesterday's news, but still.

I agree a couple of reviews (like Gametrailers') seem odd because they focused a lot on what the felt where the game's faults only to give the game higher scores, but most of the reviews I've read have justified themselves perfectly well.

 

[bndadm]

Just watched the GT review and I was really turned off by all the gratuitous violence. They really went overboard...

I agree. The worst part about it is I imagine (don't know for a fact, just assuming) that you're going to get more XP when you get in and drill a guy with half a round of AK bullets, thus encouraging you more to do it.

 

[Mr_Zombie]

I wonder if all those Gaffers who keep saying "crows served", "haters were wrong" etc. actually read those reviews or just glanced at scores and rushed to post how wrong we were. Because many reviews actually confirm a lot of our fears: too many shoot-outs, too many useless items to collect, optional tombs with simple puzzles, uninspired skills tree, annoying QTE, automatic and sticky platforming, disconnection between narrative and gameplay, too gory, unnecessary multiplayer etc. Whether someone likes the game despise those problems is a matter of opinion and taste, but those problems are there.

 

[Sn4ke_911]

According to Gamestar we have to wait a little longer for PC reviews it seems, they didn't even got the PC version yet....

 

[Salsa]

Isn't that true for every PC game you buy?

not necesarelly. I've been getting a ton of games day 1 this last year

 

[Derrick01]

I wonder if all those Gaffers who keep saying "crows served", "haters were wrong" etc. actually read those reviews or just glanced at scores at rushed to post how wrong we were. Because many reviews actually confirm a lot of our fears: too many shoot-outs, too many useless items to collect, optional tombs with simple puzzles, uninspired skills tree, annoying QTE, automatic and sticky platforming, disconnection between narrative and gameplay, too gory, unnecessary multiplayer etc. Whether someone likes the game despise those problems is a matter of opinion and taste, but those problems are there.

But dude, it got 8s and stuff. Eat your crow *posts gifs and GOTY*

edit: In seriousness most here haven't even mentioned the MP, detractors included. I remember when some were actually saying "I remember when people said Uncharted didn't need MP" and all that, and this ended up being as shoehorned as possible.

 

[Arklite]

I'm stunned to see how the reviews turned out. It never looked like a bad game to me, but it didn't look like anything new either. A manufactured experience down the production line, well executed but also familiar and well trodden.

Nice to see that it's more than a retread, apparently.

 

[derFeef]

According to Gamestar we have to wait a little longer for PC reviews it seems, they didn't even got the PC version yet....

RPS said the same...

 

[Backfoggen]

Cool if this is cool.

 

[Revven]

I wonder if all those Gaffers who keep saying "crows served", "haters were wrong" etc. actually read those reviews or just glanced at scores and rushed to post how wrong we were. Because many reviews actually confirm a lot of our fears: too many shoot-outs, too many useless items to collect, optional tombs with simple puzzles, uninspired skills tree, annoying QTE, automatic and sticky platforming, disconnection between narrative and gameplay, too gory, unnecessary multiplayer etc. Whether someone likes the game despise those problems is a matter of opinion and taste, but those problems are there.

And the reviews come off as disjointed because they praise story/character arc as weighing more than the actual part of what makes a game, a game.