bigboss370 said:
but whats with all the hate against combat? I still agree that there should be a huge survival and exploration/puzzles aspect but why not sprinkle in some combat as well? isn't the dual garter belt handguns like a major image of tomb raider? if they can create fun combat, why not?
It isn't that I hate combat, I hate the attitude the industry has that combat
has to be in games in order to make them interesting. Make games interesting in other ways? Lost in Blue was a game about surviving on a deserted island, and while it may not have been the best game ever, it was a lot of fun and unique and never once had
anything near combat. Disaster Report / Raw Danger were games about survival - which, again, could have been better in the right hands - and they were outrageously enjoyable for the concepts they explored.
As well, I can think of a number of games that would have been far better had they had their combat stripped out - Rule of Rose and Ico as two examples.
There's just too much opinion out there that adventure games can't just be adventure games - they have to be action adventure. For people who want to shoot stuff, there are
THOUSANDS of options. For people who don't want any combat, there are almost no options. Don't encourage the taking away of even more of those small handful of titles.
Do you know how hard it is for people (like me) who love games that are fun and epic and large in scope but who have actual emotional detachment from having to constantly kill people? I'm getting tired of killing, not as a gameplay mechanic, but on a bigger, more personal level. (Not that I won't play games that force me to kill, but really, more and more I wish I had more options where I didn't have to, and more and more avoid those that force me to.)