Jump to content

Tomb Raider (2013)


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Smitty said:

 

Most of the game's climbing isn't done ice pick surfaces. Of course something has been lost when a mechanic needed to navigate ALL of the grabbable surfaces in the Core trilogy has been removed.

 

You're contradicting yourself APM. In one post you praise the ice pick sections because they require you to grab on, which seems to be a recognition that it's more satisfying and interesting to be in control of what your character does. In the next post you say that having to press a button to grab on is slow (and old fasioned/pointless is the tone) and would interfere with the faster pace of the game. Make your mind up.

 

Why even have the ice pick sections? Doesn't having to press a button to climb them rather than that happening automatically intefere with the very important business of rushing forward to the next section where you shoot 100 people in the head?

*sigh* A nice balance of both of those kind of things is better than having to do it every time. Do I really need to explain this to you? It's about balance. But, ya know, you carry on being your usual aggressive self. 

 

I'm still waiting for you to say something new...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, APM said:

 TR (2013) is this ethos brought into a modern game context. 

 

LOL, this is simply not true.. TR2 features more combat (and against people) but it is 90% platforming. It's still a platforming/puzzle game with combat elements.

 

TR'13 is a shooter/action game with platforming/puzzle (if you can call them that) elements. The mix has gone completely the other way. These simply aren't games in the same genre as each other anymore.

 

Optional tombs? Tombs that consists of one tiny room? A kill count of 8000? Come on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Smitty said:

 

LOL, this is nonsense. TR2 features more combat (and against people) but it is 95% platforming. It's still a platforming/puzzle game with combat elements.

 

TR'13 is a shooter/action game with platforming/puzzle (if you can call them that) elements. The mix has gone completely the other way. These simply aren't games in the same genre as each other anymore.

Yeah, you're probably right. Games evolve as technology progresses and people's tastes change. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smitty said:

 

LOL, this is simply not true.. TR2 features more combat (and against people) but it is 90% platforming. It's still a platforming/puzzle game with combat elements.

 

TR'13 is a shooter/action game with platforming/puzzle (if you can call them that) elements. The mix has gone completely the other way. These simply aren't games in the same genre as each other anymore.

 

image.png.deb34fc89b61e861532b6763ea311fb1.png

"Yeah, I know..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, who has changed the title of the thread? It's both incorrect now and confusing.

 

The thread is for Tomb Raider 2013 which is the first game of the new trilogy. Even if this was the thread for Rise (which it isn't) it makes no sense to call it the Tomb Raider 2 thread rather than just Rise of the Tomb Raider.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is climbing a dangerous structure the time to be chilled? Sure when you reach the top, but if the climb itself is presented as hazardous, shouldn't it be nail-biting?

 

Climbing is a complex, intense activity people engage in in real life. It seems a waste to trivialise it. Balance is important, but there's a lot of wiggle room between modern tomb raider and QWOP.

 

This example is absurd, but also fair I think:

What if you were playing your preferred open world crime game and the driving controls consisted solely of issuing vague commands to go left, go right, speed up, slow down, stop - safe in the knowledge they would be interpreted in the optimal way for maximum cinematic impact. You'd feel disconnected, and it would feel inferior to when you used to have to drive the car yourself.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/06/2018 at 18:26, Smitty said:

Actually, whilst i'm thinking about this game, has anyone come across a good critical analysis of it on Youtube? Y'know something detailed and length ala Joseph Anderson, Matthewmatosis etc?

 

I haven't been able to find one, which is a shame because there's so much material here for a wide-ranging exploration of all kinds of topics which this game brushes up apon.

 

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/gq9kz3/how-the-opening-hour-of-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-expertly-hooks-its-player-111

 

The newer one, but well worth a read.

 

Have you played Rise @Smitty ? I think it's an improvement in pretty much every way over the first reboot. Brilliant DLC too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MegaTrousers said:

 

What if you were playing your preferred open world crime game and the driving controls consisted solely of issuing vague commands to go left, go right, speed up, slow down, stop - safe in the knowledge they would be interpreted in the optimal way for maximum cinematic impact. You'd feel disconnected, and it would feel inferior to when you used to have to drive the car yourself.

 

 

Aka the GTA IV driving model :hat:

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, APM said:

Yeah, you're probably right. Games evolve as technology progresses and people's tastes change. 

 

This isn't an evolution, it's a sharp change to a new genre. The TR games evolved throughout the Core and then CD series. That's evolution.

 

Also it's so vapid and naive to talk as if this is down to technology and changing tastes. It's about making money and nothing else. It lost its identity by becoming like everything else, stealing dozens and dozens of features from all the most popular games of the time.

 

As if technology couldn't be applied to the old formula to make a better game. Increasingly interactive environments, physics modelling like cloth and liquid, destructible elements, much bigger and complex levels and so forth. Technology could make Tomb Raider even more Tomb-Raidery than it has ever been before.

 

Better technology meant that CD games were able to add new ways of moving around the spaces in the game more complex and varied. That process would continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Isaac said:

 

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/gq9kz3/how-the-opening-hour-of-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-expertly-hooks-its-player-111

 

The newer one, but well worth a read.

 

Have you played Rise @Smitty ? I think it's an improvement in pretty much every way over the first reboot. Brilliant DLC too.

 

No, I haven't. Going by some video I watched recently it is a significant improvement but still the same sort of thing.

 

There's a bit in the video where the guy points this out:

 

Quote

 

The 20th anniversary edition has 31 chapters/stages.

 

- 3 tombs because of DLC

 

- 9 optional tombs

 

= 19 main stages

 

Of those 19, only 4 have mandatory puzzle solving* of some kind.

 

15 of the 19 are (majority) cover-based firefights. But the 4 that have puzzles also shove firefighting in there too.

It's better paced than last time, but any kind of pacing improvement is easily out-done by that shlock.

It's just bizarre that no tomb-raiding is required in a game called Tomb Raider.

 

* And Lara will constantly talk to herself out loud to tell the player how to solve the puzzle. You can't switch this off.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ant73 said:

Because watching a stranger play video games and then quantifying it by numbers is a great way to determine whether you'd enjoy it or not

 

Oh, i'm sorry, I didn't realise that you couldn't learn anything about anything from a second party. I'll just throw all of my books about history, politics, foreign policy, science etc away.

 

I'm not sure that Earth is round now because i've never seen the earth from space with my own eyes. Received information = suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smitty said:

 

Oh, i'm sorry, I didn't realise that you couldn't learn anything about anything from a second party. I'll just throw all of my books about history, politics, foreign policy, science etc away.

They're probably as much use to determining whether you enjoy a videogame or not as watching other people play them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit unfair singling out "mandatory puzzle solving" @Smitty and completely ignoring the 'optional' side tombs. Considering every single one of those tombs has zero human-based combat, is entirely puzzle based, and that they are how you gain new abilities, they're hardly optional, and mean that there is a shit load of content with no shooting humans at all.

 

I'd say there was zero combat in all those side tombs but thats not true, there is the occasional wolf or tiger, but that's entirely within the spirit of the old games.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stanley said:

They're probably as much use to determining whether you enjoy a videogame or not as watching other people play them.

 

???

 

I haven't determined whether I enjoy playing Rise because I haven't played it. But I can determine other, factual, things about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Smitty said:

 

???

 

I haven't determined whether I enjoy playing Rise because I haven't played it. But I can determine other, factual, things about it.

 

Like the fact that it's packed full of content that feels and plays like the old games?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smitty said:

 

???

 

I haven't determined whether I enjoy playing Rise because I haven't played it. But I can determine other, factual, things about it.

Yeah sure but it's all academic. Why not just play it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Isaac said:

Bit unfair singling out "mandatory puzzle solving" @Smitty and completely ignoring the 'optional' side tombs. Considering every single one of those tombs has zero human-based combat, is entirely puzzle based, and that they are how you gain new abilities, they're hardly optional, and mean that there is a shit load of content with no shooting humans at all.

 

I'd say there was zero combat in all those side tombs but thats not true, there is the occasional wolf or tiger, but that's entirely within the spirit of the old games.

 

 

If you don't need to complete them to advance then by definition they're optional. The number that matters to determining the structure and authorial intention of the games design is how many levels have mandatory puzzles. That would be 4.

 

Do you know how many levels I want to have mandatory puzzles in a TR game? All of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Yeah sure but it's all academic. Why not just play it?

 

I disagree that it's academic. I haven't played it because I can't afford it and I suspect it would run like trash on PC as well. Also its the sequal to Tomb Raider 2013 so I don't feel a huge rush.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smitty said:

 

If you don't need to complete them to advance then by definition they're optional. The number that matters to determining the structure and authorial intention of the games design is how many levels have mandatory puzzles. That would be 4.

 

Do you know how many levels I want to have mandatory puzzles in a TR game? All of them.

 

Firstly, it's a bit weird calling them levels (Rise is structured like a metroidvania with lots of backtracking), secondly, they're hardly optional if they're the only way you get abilities. 

 

Yes, you could skip them all if you hated fun, but that's hardly the point when a huge part of the enjoyment of the game is similar to any metroidvania game, where you get a new ability and then backtrack to get all the upgrades you now have access to.

 

I feel like you'd know this if you'd played it, mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Isaac said:

 

Like the fact that it's packed full of content that feels and plays like the old games?

 

Like the fact of the fact I just quoted for you.

 

What's your point here? I'm not reviewing Rise, I don't review games I haven't played. I just pointed out some information that I know about - it seems like its a better game than the first and it is still very much in the vein of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Isaac said:

 

Yes, you could skip them all if you hated fun

 

Or if you just played the game the way the designers intended you to.

 

Look, this is pointless. Trying to change the topic to Rise so you can complain about how I haven't played it is an interesting tactic, but it's not what I was talking about. I was talking about TR'13.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Smitty said:

 

Or if you just played the game the way the designers intended you to.

 

 

It's a Metroidvania. When did you last play a Metroidvania where the designers didn't intend you to use your abilities to access 'secret' areas? :lol: 

 

In fact, from memory they drop you into the first 'optional' tomb directly.

 

I mean, the progression through the game isn't even linear. It's a sandbox where multiple times you're funnelled back into old areas to use new abilities to unlock the next 'level' (they really aren't levels @Smitty , unless you'd call different planets on Metroid 'levels'). 

 

I'm bringing it up because they fixed so many of the gripes you had with the game in the sequel and moved away from the Uncharted model in so many areas, and yet you're arguing against something they have already fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Smitty said:

 

I disagree that it's academic. I haven't played it because I can't afford it and I suspect it would run like trash on PC as well. Also its the sequal to Tomb Raider 2013 so I don't feel a huge rush.

Smitty, there is abolutely nothing in Rise of the Tomb raider that will change your mind. It is essentially more of the same. It doesn't suddenly change into something completely different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Isaac said:

 

It's a Metroidvania. When did you last play a Metroidvania where the designers didn't intend you to use your abilities to access 'secret' areas? :lol:
@Smitty

 

 

It's a binary thing. Either those parts are mandatory or they're not. Is there now more incentive to do them? Yes. Do you have to do them? No.

 

Ergo, not mandatory.

 

I've already said that the game sounds like a big improvement. Pacing, easier to stealth combat sections rather kill everyone, better puzzles/navigation etc. But it doesn't sound like the game i'd like to see.

 

It still wants to be an action movie. There's a much bigger conversation to be had about modern gaming's obsession with telling better stories - specifically film-like stories - is drastically affecting the entire medium. Because if you think the most important thing that your game should do is tell a great, cinematic story than you have to design the game from the ground up to enable you to do that.

 

Games have become increasly focused on telling stories, to the detriment of their gameplay. They have definitely gotten better at telling stories and adding characterisation (albeit generally still weak stories) so they have taken their eye off the gameplay and player agency.

 

Why does TR'13 grab hold of the camera and take away my control every 2 minutes? So it can tell its shit story. But whilst I like a good story like anyone, I don't come to games for stories, to see a bastardized less effective version of a film. I come to play, to engage, to be challenged, to exert control.

 

Films can tell the amazing stories they can because their authors have total control over what the viewer sees and hears. So if you want to tell a complex filmic story in a game you need to constantly take control and limit what they can do.

 

Ultimately stories isn't the problem with modern games though. Wanting to make film-like stories is. Wanting to have the prestige of film. Games have lots of ways that they can tell a story that a movie cannot possibly do, but generally the focus has moved onto providing the visual 'wow' moment that films provide.

 

The other side of it is how making films means you have to make less to play, which means that gamers don't need to engage their brain as much. You can provide shallow thrills through easy-to-make cinematic moments and cutscenes rather than the slow complex demanding (of you and the player) thrills that emerge from gameplay. Give people a spectacle, provide the illusion that something interesting is happening, drastically reduce the brain power required and you've made something which is both a crowd-pleaser AND has a much wider market appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.