I don't know man.Some people think they have the right to have an opinion based on their 15 year experience with the franchise,the countless gameplay videos they have seen of this game,the interviews they have read,and basically all the reviews pointing out directly to their fears about this game.Those whiny bastards.
After watching a lot of leaked gameplay footage, there's no replayability for this Tomb Raider. Having to cross a log for 5 minutes is boring the first time, Lara moaning and being in pain for a minute and then dragging yourself to the next cutscene for 5 minutes wouldn't be fun to see multiple times.
These review scores seem to be based on appreciation for this sort of game design instead of actually analyzing it.
You realise that the reviews said the excessive moaning and cutscenes are mostly just present in the first 1-2 hours of the game, right? Later on she's quieter and there are less cutscenes (according to several different reviews).
Exactly, this is not a Tomb Raider game. It's just like what happened with Hitman Absolution. It's a big fuck you to all the people who supported the original vision. Gotta love the videogame industry.
Here is the weird thing I find happening to myself in these conversations as of late:
I was always a champion of the idea that the game's press let big blockbusters off too easily: Mass Effect 3, Diablo 3, Borderlands 2, etc. It seems like storied franchise are mostly guaranteed great reviews as long as they don't result in an absolute train wreck. Nevermind that they take no chances, end up being cliche, and have nothing really to contribute mechanically or narratively to any interesting conversation one might have about a game that their previous entry did not already establish. It's like the reverse of film industry criticism where critics go "Why did we need a sequel" but game reviewers don't ever ask that question at all, I don' think. They accept it as inevitable that there is a sequel and as long as it doesn't terribly fuck anything up, they'll pass along the hype trains of 9s and 10s on a regular basis.
HOWEVER, lately, I also find myself in completey disagreement with many "fans" who complain when series go in new directions. I liked the new Hitman. I liked the new DmC. Hell, I like it when old franchises in general eschew their old styles and offer me something new. Yes, give your IP to a new publisher. Yes, start all over from scratch. Yes please. I love it when that happens with sequels. I would dare to say that is one of the few ways sequels can get me intrigued from the start. It is always what I respected about Final Fantasy's radical reinvention of their battle mechanics every game. Or Konami's reinvention of Castlevania into a Metriod style RPG. Or Resident Evil 4's conversion or Resident Evil 5's evolution into a great co-op game.
I was shocked to find out recently, for example, despite having played previous Devil May Cry and Tomb Raider games that I apparently am not a "true fan" just because I am open to new directions and new ideas to these old franchises.
It seems to me I don't really fit with either side which makes it difficult to use reviews or message boards for much of anything nowdays. They reviews are all hype machines. The forums are all angry anti-hype machines. On one hand, I don't know any reviewers that have demonstrated to me that they can constantly live outside of the hype bubble and ask hard questions about the purpose of sequels and franchises. On the other hand, I myself in radical disagreement with people who call themselves "fans" on message boards who often seem to pick at persnickety little details or just hate the very notion of change regardless of whether or not the underlying product is good.
Hey, if it helps, I imagine you typing your posts with Wesker's shit eating grin at a rusted desk in the middle of a bare concrete room with a 10' wide HD TV showing nothing but static and a bunch of art games roasting in a 10 gallon oil drum next to a lone window
I don't know man.Some people think they have the right to have an opinion based on their 15 year experience with the franchise,the countless gameplay videos they have seen,the interviews they have read,and basically all the reviews pointing out directly to their fears about this game.Those whiny bastards.
Didn't you know? You can't have any opinion about a game you haven't played! Personally, since I can't tell what looks good and what doesn't, I just place all upcoming games on a dartboard and hope for the best on my next selection!
I've been watching a play through and I can honestly say the games environments looks quite amazing. I can tell I'm going to waste a lot of time in this game just looking around. The enemy AI is brain dead however, using the typical 80's action movie tactics (aka run straight at the protagonist).
It's never -just- one thing or -just- the other thing; Tomb Raider is actually a giant orgy of modern gaming checklist shit, much of which includes copying wholesale from Uncharted (set pieces, combat rooms, ledges breaking while you're climbing, even while they pose essentially no threat to you, etc), but there's a zillion things in here copied from a zillion different franchises... since it doesn't really have a single original bone in its body.
If you're into those things and didn't care about the original TR series at all, then obviously this isn't a big deal to you. You may love those things and think "wow, this is exactly the type of game I want."
I'm just highlighting that most people weren't saying Tomb Raider wasn't going to be a perfectly fine execution of this modern gaming nonsense; most people who were complaining didn't want this modern gaming nonsense. They wanted Tomb Raider. Just thought this should be clear.
I know you're saying it copies wholesale from a lot of things (and obviously it does draw on lots of other games for inspiration, whether you want to put 'inspiration' in inverted commas or not) but lets not credit Uncharted with set pieces, combat rooms and breaking ledges. I'm pretty sure we saw all of those in the sands of time trilogy for example.
Don't get me wrong, it's clearly aping the specific balance of action, set pieces and adventuring that Uncharted used, but I think there is enough about that makes it stand as much more than a straight clone, and whether we want it to or not, I think Tomb Raider has more of a right to crib from Uncharted than any other game.
I was shocked to find out recently, for example, despite having played previous Hitman, Devil May Cry, and Tomb Raider games that I apparently am not a "true fan" just because I am open to new directions and new ideas to these old franchises.
Here is the weird thing I find happening to myself in these conversations as of late:
I was always a champion of the idea that the game's press let big blockbusters off too easily: Mass Effect 3, Diablo 3, Borderlands 2, etc. It seems like storied franchise are mostly guaranteed great reviews as long as they don't result in an absolute train wreck. Nevermind that they take no chances, end up being cliche, and have nothing really to contribute mechanically or narratively to any intersting conversation one might have about a game that their previous entry did not already establish. It's like the reverse of film industry criticism where critics go "Why did we need a sequel" but game reviewers don't ever ask that question at all, I don' think. They accept it as inevitable that there is a sequel and as long as it doesn't terribly fuck anything up, they'll pass along the hype trains of 9s and 10s on a regular basis.
HOWEVER, lately, I also find myself in completey disagreement with many "fans" who complain when series go in new directions. I liked the new Hitman. I liked the new DmC. hell, I like it when old franchises in general eschew their old styles and offer me something new. It is always what I respected about Final Fantasy's radical reinvention of their battle mechanics every game. Or Konami's reinvention of Castlevania into a Metriod style RPG. Or Resident Evil 4's conversion or Resident Evil 5's evolution into a great co-op game.
I was shocked to find out recently, for example, despite having played previous Hitman, Devil May Cry, and Tomb Raider games that I apparently am not a "true fan" just because I am open to new directions and new ideas to these old franchises.
It seems to me I don't really fit with either side which makes it difficult to use reviews or message boards for much of anything nowdays. On one hand, I don't know any reviewers that have demonstrated to me that they can constantly live outside of the hype bubble and ask hard questions about the purpose of sequels and franchises. On the other hand, I myself in radical disagreement with people who call themselves "fans" on message boards who often seem to pick at persnickety little details or just hate the very notion of change regardless of whether or not the underlying product is good.
This is almost exactly how I feel. I only disagree with one thing. Absolution was almost a good game. If it wasn't for the REALLY stupid disguise system then it would've been pretty damn good, even with all the other missteps.
But I agree with you about everything else you said.
Here is the weird thing I find happening to myself in these conversations as of late:
I was always a champion of the idea that the game's press let big blockbusters off too easily: Mass Effect 3, Diablo 3, Borderlands 2, etc. It seems like storied franchise are mostly guaranteed great reviews as long as they don't result in an absolute train wreck. Nevermind that they take no chances, end up being cliche, and have nothing really to contribute mechanically or narratively to any intersting conversation one might have about a game that their previous entry did not already establish. It's like the reverse of film industry criticism where critics go "Why did we need a sequel" but game reviewers don't ever ask that question at all, I don' think. They accept it as inevitable that there is a sequel and as long as it doesn't terribly fuck anything up, they'll pass along the hype trains of 9s and 10s on a regular basis.
HOWEVER, lately, I also find myself in completey disagreement with many "fans" who complain when series go in new directions. I liked the new Hitman. I liked the new DmC. hell, I like it when old franchises in general eschew their old styles and offer me something new. It is always what I respected about Final Fantasy's radical reinvention of their battle mechanics every game. Or Konami's reinvention of Castlevania into a Metriod style RPG. Or Resident Evil 4's conversion or Resident Evil 5's evolution into a great co-op game.
I was shocked to find out recently, for example, despite having played previous Hitman, Devil May Cry, and Tomb Raider games that I apparently am not a "true fan" just because I am open to new directions and new ideas to these old franchises.
It seems to me I don't really fit with either side which makes it difficult to use reviews or message boards for much of anything nowdays. On one hand, I don't know any reviewers that have demonstrated to me that they can constantly live outside of the hype bubble and ask hard questions about the purpose of sequels and franchises. On the other hand, I myself in radical disagreement with people who call themselves "fans" on message boards who often seem to pick at persnickety little details or just hate the very notion of change regardless of whether or not the underlying product is good.
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. Change is good. Diversity is good. Evolution is good. People welcomed the idea of for example the reboot turning the franchise into a metroid-vania survival horror when the concept art leaked 4 years ago.
Unfortunately in the cases you listed, like Hitman Absolution or this game, the change of direction is not going towards innovation or creative evolutions of game design principles. Instead, they are carbon-copies of already existing lowest common denominator AAA game design with arbitrary Call of Duty XP, ludonarrative dissonance, more violence, etc. This is the problem people are having with the change in direction, among other things.
I really have no intention of playing this game but watching the back and forth about this game since its reveal has been entertaining.
IMO, this seems like it's going to be another DMC situation. The game itself will turn out to be well made and people such as myself that have no particularly deep connection with the series will enjoy it but traditional fans of the series aren't going to like the game because it deviates in some way from what they are accustomed to, regardless of the game's quality.
Played the game for about 9 hours at my friends places (he has an special box, was so hyped about the reboot that I had to play it beforehand)
The graphics and this is no joke, rival Uncharted at so many points! I am gonna go as far as to say that the graphics are one of the best on the Xbox. Many unforgetable places are in this game...
The story is kinda nice so far and really explains why Lara kills people and goes in to that more and more and well... there are parts (and one special part about 5 hours in) that show how crazy she goes to save her friends.
The gameplay is standard like Uncharted, climbing, shooting (with four weapons so far with some second modes
a grenade launcher which is my favorite scene lol
)
All I have to say that this game is a very very good reboot and everybody should just play after the prolouge. The beginning is pretty long (about 2 1/2 hours with the first "Wow" Scene
climbing that radio tower and going down
)
I would even go as far as to say that the shooting mechanics and the gameplay itself is way better than Uncharted 3 because of the skilling system, the flow of the battles and the wow scenes which come every 30 minutes. The QTE flow nice too.
If anybody has a question, just ask, but I am gonna wait for my copy now.
Oh loading times are very short too.
lol and i agree on the shooting mechanics, this game feels tight, it feels great, it doesn't have that floatiness feel the uncharted games are known for
God fucking praise this thread and the new Tomb Raider game.
I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic, despite the good scores this game is getting. I might read some reviews but I've stopped reading reviews for a long time to avoid stumbling into any spoilers. I mostly go to GAF users, almost exclusively in game OTs, to get opinions and discuss the qualities and shortcomings of a game.
And it seems like so far, of the GAFers who have actually played this game, the results are glowing.
I just played through Legend. Those are my estimates, and I'm sticking with 'em. Point is, the balance was still in favor of exploration/platforming/puzzle solving just ilke a TR should be.
I have played through Legend three times and the last time was just months ago.So i'm sticking to what i said.Combat felt like it was their main focus if you actually realize how short the game was.
Still from the looks of it Legend doesn't even come close to the orgasmic shooter fest that is this reboot.
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. Change is good. Diversity is good. Evolution is good. People welcomed the idea of for example the reboot turning the franchise into a metroid-vania survival horror when the concept art leaked 4 years ago.
Unfortunately in the cases you listed, like Hitman Absolution or this game, the change of direction is not going towards innovation or creative evolutions of game design principles. Instead, they are carbon-copies of already existing lowest common denominator AAA game design with arbitrary Call of Duty XP, ludonarrative dissonance, more violence, etc. This is the problem people are having with the change in direction, among other things.
I agree with this statement however people may not like it but it sells because its a formula the casual gamer is familiar with and I believe that was the target audience of this game.
IMO, this seems like it's going to be another DMC situation. The game itself will turn out to be well made and people such as myself that have no particularly deep connection with the series will enjoy it but traditional fans of the series aren't going to like the game because it deviates in some way from what they are accustomed to, regardless of the game's quality.
The difference is the previous DmC games were more or less what fans wanted. The last few tomb raider games have been pretty crap. Rather than go back to what "works/people want" they have gone in a different direction entirely (really just going in the direction they always wanted, but actually having enough games now to copy to pull it off).
So I don't think it is exactly the same situation. I think of this as more of a lost opportunity (for old school fans) rather than a real change from something which was already good.
Huh? I don't know what part of my post motivated your reply.
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. Change is good. Diversity is good. Evolution is good. People welcomed the idea of for example the reboot turning the franchise into a metroid-vania survival horror when the concept art leaked 4 years ago.
Unfortunately in the cases you listed, like Hitman Absolution or this game, the change of direction is not going towards innovation or creative evolutions of game design principles. Instead, they are carbon-copies of already existing lowest common denominator AAA game design with arbitrary Call of Duty XP, ludonarrative dissonance, more violence, etc. This is the problem people are having with the change in direction, among other things.
If you ever visited some of the shock/gore websites and seen gifs/videos where people get shot you would be suprised (...and sick) how unspectacular it looks. Most of the time they don't even bleed or start bleeding 10 minutes later depending on the calibre/angle of impact. (shock etc.)
I remember seeing a MoH: Frontline interview where they had a military advisor who insisted that they should remove all splatter effects and the blood.
I wish more games would go this route instead of the overdrawn and cheesy Hollywood way where they do backflips and bleed 50 liter. I mean there are already mechanics to indicate hits via crosshair and other clever ways of telling people that they hit the target.
The Tomb Raider (and most other games) blood splatter makes the whole picture... well, noisy for lack of a better term.
Unfortunately in the cases you listed, like Hitman Absolution or this game, the change of direction is not going towards innovation or creative evolutions of game design principles. Instead, they are carbon-copies of already existing lowest common denominator AAA game design with arbitrary Call of Duty XP, ludonarrative dissonance, more violence, etc. This is the problem people are having with the change in direction, among other things.
You can write this post at the top of every page in this thread, and still people will come in here using the word "haters" and asking others to "eat crow" because "great reviews" and "hate change". It is what it is.
I was offered to get either Bioshock or this game for free when I bought my video card. I picked this knowing at least I'll get a good laugh out of it. I'm crossing my fingers and hope that I'll get more than a laugh out of Tomb Raider.
I don't know if that is the case or not with TR. I know for a fact it was not the case with DmC. There are lots of new ideas in that game. It did cool things with level design and the graple mechanics. But just because it is easier to SSS combo and has less frame reversals or whatever, it's anathematized. I liked the new focus on level design and the re-imagination of the universe because even though I liked the previous DMC games, I was getting pretty bored with the endless focus on hyper-extreme combo nonsense. It still has that, but it downplayed it's importance and shifted the focus elsewhere.
Some fans therefore thought it lacked depth, but I question their concept of depth. To me, a game that requires extreme skill to pull off complex moves not automatically a "deeper" experience. In my opinion, score chasing reflex based gameplay is just about the shallowest form of game mechanics interaction. I am more interested in mechanics and narratives that evolve in interesting ways and/or offer freedom of expression for either designers or players.
My only point is that I learned that I can't trust the "DMC" fans idea of "depth." So even though I am a long time TR fan and have played most of the games in the series to completion (TR1-3, Chronicles, and all 3 previous Crystal D games), I'm not sure the yelling here is not just the same old sound and fury signifying nothing.
Yes, when I collected the first coffee thermos in Alan Wake, it was like staring straight into the darkest Abyss. Inhumane, nihilistic forces washed over me as my body trembled in complete fear and disgust. At that moment I swore to myself I would spend each second of my limited time as a mortal on complaining on the Internet about Alan Wake's shitty coffee thermos collectibles. My life would never be the same again and everyone I loved and held dear left me thanks to my personal crusade.
relax, I'm just making fun of an obviously stupid game design choice
Huh? I don't know what part of my post motivated your reply.
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. Change is good. Diversity is good. Evolution is good. People welcomed the idea of for example the reboot turning the franchise into a metroid-vania survival horror when the concept art leaked 4 years ago.
Unfortunately in the cases you listed, like Hitman Absolution or this game, the change of direction is not going towards innovation or creative evolutions of game design principles. Instead, they are carbon-copies of already existing lowest common denominator AAA game design with arbitrary Call of Duty XP, ludonarrative dissonance, more violence, etc. This is the problem people are having with the change in direction, among other things.
See, it's like we are speaking a different language. I played Absolution. It is nowhere in hell like Call of Duty. It's like you guys only know how to speak in hyperbole because you are trying to counter the game media's hyperbole on the other side.
Absolution had some levels that were shorter and more straight forward, yes. I enjoyed those levels because I thought they gave you some mini-sandbox areas to try all sorts of original stuff w/o having to wade through long sections to play around with variations. Like the Chinatown level. I loved the idea that I could plant a car bomb in the drug dealers apartment, take the drug dealers clothes, lead teh guy back to the drug dealers apartment, and non-nonchalantly walk out of the apartment and set off the bomb as he snorted coke in the room.
As for the other levels that were more "go from point a to point b," the escape levels, again they were a nice change of pace between the longer levels. I didn't see it as dumbing down as much as adding variety.
I'm trying to take the whole package in from what I played already. I already mentioned before but the game is solid all all around. My pros so far are def the sense of scale, the enviroments, and the sound design. Combat is fun. The idea of looking for parts, etc, and leveling up is cool as well. I've been a fan of Tomb Raider and played all of them. Yes this is way different then the older games no doubt. I like the new direction. Yes people will say it's not original, not the same and your right. I'm ok with that and if sales of the last TR game Underworld were any indication, people will most likely be ok with this as well.
I have played through Legend three times and the last time was just months ago.So i'm sticking to what i said.Combat felt like it was their main focus if you actually realize how short the game was.
Still from the looks of it Legend doesn't even come close to the orgasmic shooter fest that is this reboot.
I know the game was short, but I think you're overestimating time spent in combat. Recall the entire England level, and long portions of gameplay where you're just platforming and puzzle-solving. I mean in those levels that you mention a lot of enemies, there is still at least a 40/60 split in favor of the classic Tomb Raiding gameplay. Combat was over fairly quickly because it was so easy, but the puzzles sometimes took a bit of time just to get through.
It did feel a lot less isolating than previous TR games due to the radio chatter.
Just got around to watching this and yes, this is a pretty well done review. It actually critically analyzes the game for what it tries to do and how it executes on them. And noted all the points at the end of the video with a score that reflected the reviewer's remarks about the game; which was the fact while the game was enjoyable at some parts and playable, its execution on several of its points (including the main draw to the game, Lara's progression as a character to who she is known for today) are lacking.
But of course nobody will take this review over any of the "professional gaming journalist" ones.
Huh? I don't know what part of my post motivated your reply.
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. Change is good. Diversity is good. Evolution is good. People welcomed the idea of for example the reboot turning the franchise into a metroid-vania survival horror when the concept art leaked 4 years ago.
Unfortunately in the cases you listed, like Hitman Absolution or this game, the change of direction is not going towards innovation or creative evolutions of game design principles. Instead, they are carbon-copies of already existing lowest common denominator AAA game design with arbitrary Call of Duty XP, ludonarrative dissonance, more violence, etc. This is the problem people are having with the change in direction, among other things.
I fail to see how Absolution is any of those things, besides challenges that reward the player with loose upgrades, I don't see how that applies to Absolution at all.
I sure do remember the stealth sequences in CoD, or that one time I dressed as a store clerk and hit a mob of civilians in the head with a brick.
If you ever visited some of the shock/gore websites and seen gifs/videos where people get shot you would be suprised (...and sick) how unspectacular it looks. Most of the time they don't even bleed or start bleeding 10 minutes later depending on the calibre/angle of impact. (shock etc.)
I remember seeing a MoH: Frontline interview where they had a military advisor who insisted that they should remove all splatter effects and the blood.
I wish more games would go this route instead of the overdrawn and cheesy Hollywood way where they do backflips and bleed 50 liter. I mean there are already mechanics to indicate hits via crosshair and other clever ways of telling people that they hit the target.
The Tomb Raider (and most other games) blood splatter makes the whole picture... well, noisy for lack of a better term.
Yeah I have unfortunately seen some when I was younger and curious about that kind of shit. And I know games are not even close to an accurate representation of what it's like and that's certainly not what I'm asking for. I just like it as a visceral aesthetic. It's like when I watch a Scorcese flick...I know someone is getting shot in the fucking head and there's gonna be a ton of blood everywhere.
Yeah, the Eurogamer score and criticism seem super dissonant. To read it Ellie seemed pretty bitter about how the game was "competent" at emulating other games rather than doing its own less violent thing.
I'm trying to take the whole package in from what I played already. I already mentioned before but the game is solid all all around. My pros so far are def the sense of scale, the enviroments, and the sound design. Combat is fun. The idea of looking for parts, etc, and leveling up is cool as well. I've been a fan of Tomb Raider and played all of them. Yes this is way different then the older games no doubt. I like the new direction. Yes people will say it's not original, not the same and your right. I'm ok with that and if sales of the last TR game Underworld were any indication, people will most likely be ok with this as well.
How does it compare to the other Crystal Dynamic games in terms of platforming and puzzles?
I sort of played but not much some of the originals years ago but did not like them because of their controls and did not finish them but I finished and really liked Anniversary and liked and also finished Underworld. I will get this eventually, Legend too.
You can write this post at the top of every page in this thread, and still people will come in here using the word "haters" and asking others to "eat crow" because "great reviews" and "hate change". It is what it is.
If people want Uncharted, they can play Uncharted. If people want Tomb Raider? Well, I guess they can play Uncharted too, and this new, more open ended hybrid Uncharted.
Just imagine if the next Uncharted ditched combat for the most part and was 90% puzzles and exploration. Would Uncharted fans be justified in being disappointed at the new direction for the series? Would they be described as just hating change for the hell of it? Or just being haters?
Just imagine if the next Uncharted ditched combat for the most part and was 90% puzzles and exploration. Would Uncharted fans be justified to be disappointed at the new direction for the series? Would they be described as just hating change for the hell of it? Or just being haters?
I think that change would be welcomed. Even if successful, Tomb Raider 3 (umm the new TR3) would need to change things up too, because the inevitable AAAAAAAA sequel to this game will be more of the same and people will be getting bored of it, just like U3.
I know the game was short, but I think you're overestimating time spent in combat. Recall the entire England level, and long portions of gameplay where you're just platforming and puzzle-solving. I mean in those levels that you mention a lot of enemies, there is still at least a 40/60 split in favor of the classic Tomb Raiding gameplay. Combat was over fairly quickly because it was so easy, but the puzzles sometimes took a bit of time just to get through.
It did feel a lot less isolating than previous TR games due to the radio chatter.
I know the game was short, but I think you're overestimating time spent in combat. Recall the entire England level, and long portions of gameplay where you're just platforming and puzzle-solving. I mean in those levels that you mention a lot of enemies, there is still at least a 40/60 split in favor of the classic Tomb Raiding gameplay. Combat was over fairly quickly because it was so easy, but the puzzles sometimes took a bit of time just to get through.
It did feel a lot less isolating than previous TR games due to the radio chatter.
Yeah I have to agree with you and disagree with the guy who thinks recent TRs have had significant gunplay.
For context - I stopped playing Uncharted 1 because there was too much gunplay and it took too long, perhaps because of the cover-based pop and drop shooting whereas it's over very quickly in all Tomb Raiders that I've played (which is all of them except AoD).
Just imagine if the next Uncharted ditched combat for the most part and was 90% puzzles and exploration. Would Uncharted fans be justified to be disappointed at the new direction for the series? Would they be described as just hating change for the hell of it? Or just being haters?
Given how annoyed I get when fire fights burst out in Uncharted I might actually be celebrating this. Maybe we'll get lucky with games like Walking Dead making a big splash and someone wants to do something like this.
It's here as well.
