|
Post by Sarge on May 31, 2020 21:48:29 GMT -5
Well, I happen to enjoy Uncharted and Tomb Raider, so different tastes and all that. And you'll die a pretty good amount in Tomb Raider 2013, 'cause I did quite a bit and saw those gruesome death scenes. Those were toned down a bit in later releases, and I enjoyed those a bunch, too.
Now, one thing that you might be making a point about is that MW2 was a bit more dynamic in nature. You had a particular mission, yes, but more control over how you approach it. Sometimes how you survived is a story in and of itself, and that's even more amplified by the fact that you don't get mid-mission checkpoints. And really, perhaps that's the issue. Games have been made to be less frustrating, but sometimes the danger isn't there not because you can't die, but because you get as many shots as you need to succeed, barring some examples that set you back quite a bit like the Dark Souls games.
I honestly think there's room for both. I don't always want a game that's going to keep me on edge the entire time.
|
|
|
Post by anayo on May 31, 2020 21:55:42 GMT -5
Well, I happen to enjoy Uncharted and Tomb Raider, so different tastes and all that. And you'll die a pretty good amount in Tomb Raider 2013, 'cause I did quite a bit and saw those gruesome death scenes. Those were toned down a bit in later releases, and I enjoyed those a bunch, too. Now, one thing that you might be making a point about is that MW2 was a bit more dynamic in nature. You had a particular mission, yes, but more control over how you approach it. Sometimes how you survived is a story in and of itself, and that's even more amplified by the fact that you don't get mid-mission checkpoints. And really, perhaps that's the issue. Games have been made to be less frustrating, but sometimes the danger isn't there not because you can't die, but because you get as many shots as you need to succeed, barring some examples that set you back quite a bit like the Dark Souls games. I honestly think there's room for both. I don't always want a game that's going to keep me on edge the entire time. Yeah I'm definitely an outlier because the 2010's Tomb Raider games are held in really high esteem. I think I would have liked that style of game when I was younger. In a weird way it reminds me of Shenmue (probably all the QTEs and emphasis on putting you "in the skin" of the main character) and I loved Shenmue when I was in high school. My tastes probably just changed.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on May 31, 2020 22:01:10 GMT -5
I will say that the 2013 entry is the weakest. As I've heard it put elsewhere, it's "babby's first tombs" on the exploration side.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on May 31, 2020 23:19:07 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for one of you here to beat the original Tomb Raider on PSX like I did last year. One of the toughest games I've played in recent years! The PC version allows manual saving... so that's cheap. I think the new games are great, but yes they have plenty of modern design silliness and some stuff is dragged out. Compared to Uncharted, modern Tomb Raider had a few more layers of systems and such in a Zelda-like way to me, upgrading Lara's equipment and getting new abilities, some slightly open areas to explore, etc. Uncharted 1-2 were literally just do platforming here, pickup these generic weapons and fight waves of enemies, rinse and repeat. I don't really care if Uncharted is maybe better in terms of story or acting, the modern Tomb Raider's were just simply way more fun as games to me.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on May 31, 2020 23:31:47 GMT -5
Another good target for this month. Should probably do Deus Ex, though.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jun 1, 2020 9:07:17 GMT -5
I played Tomb Raider 2013 for 30 minutes before deciding I thoroughly dislike that game. I think your complaints about how linearly scripted 2013 Tomb Raider is are valid. And those complaints carry over to a whole lot of other modern action-adventure games. It's all part of the "cinematic experience" design, where the developers want to make the player feel like they are in an action movie. Well to do that, the experience has to be tightly reigned in and on predetermined rails, with little room for emergent or dynamic scenario possibilities. Also action games in the 7th gen are pretty damned easy (with the exception of the Souls series and its ilk). It makes sense that when a company spends millions upon millions to make a high profile cinematic action-adventure game, they are not going to want to run off the largest demographic, gamers who simply want to have their ego stroked while soaking in the the latest technological eye candy.
I'm not saying easy pretend-movie action-games shouldn't exist. I understand why they exist, and sometimes even I enjoy them to a degree. But I totally get where you are coming from in your complaints against 2013 Tomb Raider. I beat that game myself back in 2018, and there were my brief thoughts then: " Tomb Raider 2013 attempts to outdo Uncharted at its own game, and does so occasionally. Spectacularly amazing graphics make this AAA showboat float, with visceral combat and ofttimes inspired platforming. The experience is weighed down by a lame plot with pathetic attempts at pathos, terrible QTE segments, and lackluster difficulty in general, especially the brain dead environment puzzles being disingenuous to the series' legacy. It's easy to look past that stuff when you're exploring absolutely gorgeous environments, or just viciously blowing dudes' faces off. (Seriously, this game has a near-comical fascination with death, it probably holds the world's record for the most skeletons in one video game.) Purely as a blockbuster thrill ride, Tomb Raider 2013 does a good job of letting Lara take revenge on Nathan's long time cribbing." 7/10 I'm still waiting for one of you here to beat the original Tomb Raider on PSX like I did last year. One of the toughest games I've played in recent years! The PC version allows manual saving... so that's cheap. What's interesting to me is the PC, PS1, and Saturn version all released on the same day (November, 14th 1996), so I'm not sure if manually saving is how Core originally envisioned the game design, and just left it out of the console versions due to hardware limitations/difficulties. I think it's great that you beat the original TR1. I'd like to myself, but I'm torn between doing the original or the remake. I've got the original DOS TR1 via GOG, and the Anniversary remake on 360. This was my exact experience as well, although I've not played UC2/UC3/UC4 yet. I've only beaten UC1 and U:GA on Vita. Maybe UC2-4 are wayyy better and will change my mind. In the TR world, I've only beaten Legends and the 2013 reimagining. barring some examples that set you back quite a bit like the Dark Souls games. I honestly think there's room for both. I don't always want a game that's going to keep me on edge the entire time. I agree there's room for both schools of modern action-game design. But I'll also say that after beating Demon's Souls, a couple Uncharted games, and a couple modern Tomb Raider games... Demon's Souls utterly destroyed the UC and TR games in every possible category. DeS was simply a masterpiece, and one of the greatest gaming experiences of my life. In contrast, the UC and TR games were forgettable popcorn summer flicks. And that's not just due to DeS' brilliant difficulty either. DeS has a whole lot to offer in the realm of aesthetics, world design, and its plot.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Jun 1, 2020 9:23:14 GMT -5
The levels had finite "Save Crystals" and many of the levels can be nonlinear, so there were often times where you have to think if you really want to save when and where so you don't have to repeat parts of a level if you die. And it's easy to die in Tomb Raider. I'd wager Core wanted that to be the experience, maybe the PC version just got manual saving since most PC games usually had that. Who knows though... I forgot I was playing Legend a few months ago, lol. I'd say the original Tomb Raider and Anniversary are probably pretty different. A lot of the original is kind of surreal and unnatural in design, in a cool way. Whereas those Legends games and up kind of go for more realism, so I wonder how the transition went. I should just skip Legend and get to Anniversary to check it out. I think there's a time when people come to realize through the Souls games, that death isn't as bad as legends tend to suggest. Yeah you're going to fall off a cliff or two, lose tons of exp to a boss, etc, but it's hardly a game ender. I find these games to be very relaxing because the game doesn't strip control from you or do any hand holding. You are free. But maybe I'm in the minority that gets this pleasure from them.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jun 1, 2020 9:40:03 GMT -5
The levels had finite "Save Crystals" I wonder if these Save Crystals are also in the PC version? If so, I'll wager that not having manual-saves was the original intended design. Wouldn't surprise me honestly, as TR1 was from an era where difficulty in video games was still a valued concept. It would be great to see what you think of Anniversary versus the original, since you have actually beaten the original TR. Anniversary was reviewed highly and sold well too, so it's a good candidate for this month's Club Retro.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Jun 1, 2020 10:19:21 GMT -5
The levels had finite "Save Crystals" I wonder if these Save Crystals are also in the PC version? If so, I'll wager that not having manual-saves was the original intended design. Wouldn't surprise me honestly, as TR1 was from an era where difficulty in video games was still a valued concept. It would be great to see what you think of Anniversary versus the original, since you have actually beaten the original TR. Anniversary was reviewed highly and sold well too, so it's a good candidate for this month's Club Retro. Hmmm, guess Anniversary could be a good pick. I did always hear great things about it too. But gah, I feel like I have to beat Legend first as a scholarly endeavor going through the TR series now...
Yet, I did beat Legend in like 2006 on the 360 but forgot most of it. So I'm not sure why I feel the need to finish a forgettable game again. I just want to get that HLTB time logged.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jun 1, 2020 10:28:36 GMT -5
Well Legend only takes about 7 hours to beat, so it's not a huge endeavor or anything. I beat it in 2007, and I too can't recall much about the game myself either. I remember it being pleasant enough but obviously not impactful.
|
|