Support NeoGAF

[Draper]

Because of one thing there can be no doubt. Lara is back.

*cringe*

 

[chickdigger802]

Brad is reviewing for GB right? expecting 5 stars... but he didn't seem so thrilled during unpro fridays.

 

[jimi_dini]

I think Classic Gaming Room is the only good reviewers left

I loved Mark's Aliens Colonial Marines review.

I guess Tomb Raider will get a similar one.

 

[Takuan]

When do the real reviews start coming out? Immediately after?

 

[Harlequin]

I'm not twisting anything.No the only one who is continually spinning information to match the hard on he has with this game is you.No wonder people think you are from Eidos PR.
Both the director of the game in an interview have said this as well as a fan who has actually played the game and posted in TRforums a Q&A has confirmed this.
He has also said that in the first hour he played the game there were around 10 (!) QTEs.

I was referring to the word many. I am well aware that this kind of stuff does happen in the game. I have also played the deer hub demo and I know that she can't fall off that cliff at the beginning. But seriously, it has zero effect on the actual gameplay because you wouldn't be jumping around in that area, aynway. And from what we've seen it doesn't seem like something that happens very often. So like I said: is it stupid and pointless? Yes. Does it matter? Not at all. I could make Lara fall off all the ledges in the deer hub where you could acutally do some platforming and there were no invisible walls, either. I could hop onto every single piece of scenery (except for the tress, obviously). That's an improvement over Crystal's previous games.

The QTEs are a different matter altogether. I'm not too bothered by them but we'll see if that changes after having played the game.

Underworld (which was admittedly a shitty game like all of Crystal's TR games) managed to sell more than two million copies.That doesn't sound "dead" for me.
And even though it didn't hold a candle when compared to the classics it showed some signs that Crystal was finally learning something at least in terms of level design.

But now it's like they said "fuck that it's too hard to make an actual TR game so let's tick every box that is hot today and hope for the best".

I didn't mean dead in the commercial sense. I don't consider Crystal's games in the series so far proper TR games. So to me the actual series died when it was taken from Core. That's what I mean.

For people who like shooters,cinematic storytelling,QTEs and white ledges and ropes showing to the stupid how to move forward in a game that was suppossed to be about getting lost and finding your own path, sure this could be the game of their dreams but there is no way this is a TR game.
Except if you are one of those people who think that Lara = Tomb Raider.Then all this discussion is pointless.

I realy do think you're being too negative. To me it seems more and more like we've actually got similar opinions on the franchise as a whole but simply approach this reboot completely differently. I still think the game will feature some proper traversal, puzzles and exploration and won't just be a mindless shooter. I'll still enjoy it if it is (but only if the story is good), I guess. But I will certainly be very disappointed.

Actually the "platforming" looks exactly the same as in the previous Crystal games with the only difference being that we're now suppossed to be able to steer her while she's in the air.Which is pointless since from what i've seen there's no way to miss a jump (unless you do it deliberately) as it was also the case in the LAU trilogy.

It really doesn't. In LAU it's mostly just ledge-hopping, whereas most of the platforming we've seen from the reboot seems to be jumping from platform to platform which is at least closer to TR platforming than ledge-hopping. The ledges and platforms also aren't magnetic anymore (I know this from playing the game...unless they've changed it in the meantime ). I agree that what we've seen doesn't look too challenging. But it at least looks less controlled/scripted and more fun than ledge-hopping. My only worry is that there won't be enough platforming.

The GamesMaster review actually says that there are some pretty difficult platforming puzzles later on in the game. Now it's hard to say what their definition of difficult is but it does mean that the platforming later on will at least be more difficult than the stuff we've seen.

Sorry but exploration for dummies is not the exploration i want in a TR game.There are so many white ledges,white ropes and even white rocks in almost every trailer they showed so far that it's not even funny anymore.There is even white paint on rocks showing the whereabouts of your optional tombs just in case the player is stupid enough to not be able to find them on his own.And not to mention the scripted jumps and your usual magnetic hoping around.No this is not true exploration for me.This is sightseeing,more like a Tourist Raider or something.

I totally agree on the white ledges. I hate them. I still remember the leaked night hub footage from...I think it was 2011. They didn't have any white ledges or ropes in it. The playtesters were probably too stupid to find the way without them, I guess .

There will be multiple pathways and open hubs though. And the hubs we've seen are said to be the smallest ones in the game. Sure, we can't prove it. But I don't really see a reason not to believe it, either. The hubs we've seen were the first ones in the game. It'd make sense that they would get bigger in the later sections. We'll know for sure when the game is released.

Why is that?I've heard other people saying that too but i don't think that just because the series had the bad luck to be given to a developer who is obssesed with a certain style of gameplay the series should also be forever doomed.
DICE showed with Mirror's Edge that it is possible to for a modern developer to recapture the core essence of a game like Tomb Raider again.
Sure it might not sell as much as Assasin's Creed but if the developers stick to their vision and have a sincere love for the legacy of this series then the game can once again become (reasonably) successful.Look at games like Demon's Souls or Dark Souls for more examples of developers that gained critical recognition and also became successful without sacrificing their vision for whatever is hot on the market today.

Haha. You sound just like me right now. I'm usually the one who points to Mirror's Edge saying it's a perfect example of what modern TR platforming should be like .

 

[Lime]

I loved Mark's Aliens Colonial Marines review.

I guess Tomb Raider will get a similar one.

In large part to his tone, I am seriously uncertain whether or not this "Mark" is sarcastic in that video.

When do the real reviews start coming out? Immediately after?

Embargo lifts Monday, a week before release.

 

[Yagharek]

Nothing but hyperbole in that review. I'll wait til someone capable of writing like an adult posts a review.

 

[suddenlyissoon]

Still don't know whether to go PC or 360/PS3. Glad the embargo is up early to help me make up my mind!

 

[Harlequin]

Still don't know whether to go PC or 360/PS3. Glad the embargo is up early to help me make up my mind!

I'd certainly go with the PC version if you've got a good PC. We won't see any actual PC screenshots till next week (I think they're also supposed to be released Monday but I'm not sure) but judging by the list of added features it'll look way better.

 

[AAK]

Why should they get the benefit of the doubt considering their past Tomb Raider games? This game looks like everything fans didn't like about CD's Tomb Raider games distilled into its purist form.

Because now CD is designing the game around these changes instead of how it was simply there in the previous games. Again, like RE4 they're abandoning their old gameplay because they feel they feel the game would be superior in the current direction.

And again like with RE4 they're trying to gain new people at the expense of old fans. It might be a success like RE4 or a failure like DmC.

 

[Totobeni]

I think I made a bet somewhere some months ago that this game will have a metacritic of 85 or higher; that's because one can predict where a "AAA" game will land on the metacritic up to 2-3 years in advance with a huge percentage of accuracy. Reviews are not critical assessments of games anymore. They're generally paid advertisements.

Doritos ages

seeing DmC getting perfect scores after the awful demo and how everyone saying Dead Space 3 is the coolest is just sad, most reviewers and their reviews are completely useless nowdays.

 

[Messofanego]

In large part to his tone, I am seriously uncertain whether or not this "Mark" is sarcastic in that video.

He's different to other reviewers in that he'll find positive things to say about any game. His point that this is a generic action take compared to the movies is delivered well enough. "The squirrels in my attic put up more of a fight than these aliens. Of course, the squirrels in Pennsylvania have sulphuric acid for blood, which is why we have so many pot holes out here."

 

[eshwaaz]

Doritos ages

seeing DmC getting perfect scores after the awful demo and how everyone saying Dead Space 3 is the coolest is just sad, most reviewers and their reviews are completely useless nowdays.

Both games are very good. I actually think Dead Space 3's review average is too low.

I have Crysis 3, Metal Gear Rising and Ni No Kuni all in progress, but last night I chose to start a second game of Dead Space 3 instead.

 

[RagnarokX]

Based on sales of prior tomb raider game this gen, and the reworked ones as well, Sounds like that is what people don't want an actual Tomb raider game.

I'd say people don't want what Crystal made of Tomb Raider. The series was doing fine until Eidos ran the series into the ground by forcing Core to make Tomb Raider Chronicles and Angel of Darkness was a mess. Sales plummetted with those disasters, and then Crystal's games never lived up to their predecessors; they were too action-focused and handholdy.

 

[ArjanN]

Doritos ages

seeing DmC getting perfect scores after the awful demo and how everyone saying Dead Space 3 is the coolest is just sad, most reviewers and their reviews are completely useless nowdays.

Most reviews have always been terrible, nothing new under the sun there.

Dead Space scored lower than the previous games but should have gotten more shit IMO.

DmC was actually good.

 

[Vyse The Legend]

Exclusive reviews are usually always junk. GamesMaster themselves have a pretty bad track record in this regard. They did give RE6 a similar score.

The game can still be great, mind you, but this is certainly not a review to be trusted.

 

[RedAssedApe]

I'm always down for more Uncharted.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

All I care about is the length. 10-15 hrs sounds good to me. Looking forward to see what other reviewers say. Good thing we don't have to wait another week for them. Hate embargoes.

Also, for the lack of explorable tombs: obviously DLC coming!

 

[_woLf]

This game could get 10/10's from every major reviewer that exists and GAF would hate it. It's hopeless.

 

[PowderedToast]

"dribbling from our gaping jaws", you can't make up that shit lmao

 

[Harlequin]

I'd say people don't want what Crystal made of Tomb Raider. The series was doing fine until Eidos ran the series into the ground by forcing Core to make Tomb Raider Chronicles and Angel of Darkness was a mess. Sales plummetted with those disasters, and then Crystal's games never lived up to their predecessors; they were too action-focused and handholdy.

To be completely fair, both Eidos and Core were at fault for AoD's failure. Eidos because they made them do Chronicles which meant the experienced TR veterans at Core couldn't join the AoD team until that project had already become a fucking mess. Also because they threatened Core's employees (which made some of them leave at a time when every single one of them was needed) and because they let themselves become too dependent on the yearly TR money and were on the brink of going bankrupt. Had they been financially stable they would've been able to finance the delays AoD would've needed to be fixed up.
And Core because they simply completely failed at internally managing that game's development and because they were way too ambitious. They should've known from the start that the game they had set out to make couldn't have possibly been developed in the time available to them.

It's a real shame that it didn't work out. That game could've been something truly special. It still is IMO. But only if you can see it for what it was supposed to be and can overlook its faults.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Tomb Raider games we're garbage anyways. I actually went back and played a few of them, pretty terrible.
Also, how exactly is it not tomb raider game? Because it doesn't meet your nebulous definition of what a tomb raider game should be?

There is absolutely nothing nebulous about what I loved about the old TR games. I will make this clear once the OT arrives and I've played through this thing and am ready to make a complete comparison. I never thought of TR as being the best series ever, but take a step back and realize we are now at the point where we are forced to defend even just-good series from turning into samey money grabs.

 

[Lime]

Here's Games Master's track record on Metacritic. I cherry-picked three examples that I strongly disagreed with:

The "Critic score" is their scores, while "Metascore" is the overall average from all outlets.

This game could get 10/10's from every major reviewer that exists and GAF would hate it. It's hopeless.

Do you think the problem is with "GAF" (whatever that refers to) or actual state of game reviewers?

 

[Squire]

Brad is reviewing for GB right? expecting 5 stars... but he didn't seem so thrilled during unpro fridays.

He probably can't be. Someone reviewing it told me there's a ton of NDAs attached to it and it is indeed very good.

 

[jimi_dini]

This game could get 10/10's from every major reviewer that exists and GAF would hate it. It's hopeless.

Getting 10/10 from every major reviewer doesn't automatically mean it's superb or even good.

GTA IV gives us characters and a world with a level of depth previously unseen in gaming and elevates its story from a mere shoot-em-up to an Oscar-caliber drama. Every facet of Rockstar's new masterpiece is worthy of applause. Without question, Grand Theft Auto IV is the best game since Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

It may just mean that those reviewers got paid well.

 

[_woLf]

Do you think the problem is with "GAF" (whatever that refers to) or actual state of game reviewers?

GAF has become incredibly unreasonable with the hate surrounding this game. It's hard to have a discussion without it spiraling out of control with troll posts and "hurr can I protect it" bullshit. It's GAF.

 

[Puppet Shadow]

This game could get 10/10's from every major reviewer that exists and GAF would hate it. It's hopeless.

Or many people (Gaf isn't some borg-like hive mind) think it may not be worth the 10 all reviewers say it is.

You, uh.. think GTA IV is a 10?

 

[Squire]

GAF has become incredibly unreasonable with the hate surrounding this game. It's hard to have a discussion without it spiraling out of control with troll posts and "hurr can I protect it" bullshit. It's GAF.

Yeah, it's gone from thinking it'll be bad to actively hoping and praying it is.

 

[Jaded Alyx]

90% from Gamesmaster is pretty bad.

 

[Lime]

GAF has become incredibly unreasonable with the hate surrounding this game. It's hard to have a discussion without it spiraling out of control with troll posts and "hurr can I protect it" bullshit. It's GAF.

There have been a lot of quality posts from both sides in discussing the shown PR material. You must have missed them or simply stopped reading the threads that provide the reasons for the criticisms? In my experience there have been many long-winded dissections on why this game simply doesn't look very creative or innovative in what should have been a reboot of the series.

In any case, the reason why this game gets so much flak is two-fold:

• For one, it represents everything that is wrong with AAA games these days: Arbitrary XP grinding, linear setpiece level design, ultra violence, ludonarrative dissonance, pandering female objectification, optional tombs, shameless ripoffs from Uncharted (multiplayer, train/plane climbing), etc.
• Secondly it isn't a justifiable change of direction for the fans of the series - i.e. a reboot is a fine idea and a fresh change of pace is definitely much more preferable than stagnation of the same formula. Yet the problem is that they reboot the game into another generic cinematic shooter with borrowed tacked-on mechanics from other popular AAA games. The survival-horror open-world concept they had in mind in the leaked concept arts was much more impressive and interesting and I'd bet that fans would be much more forthcoming towards such a change of direction.

The two above deficiencies motivate a lot of different people with different tastes into bringing their critical assessment to bear.

 

[Knux-Future]

what if the game is actually good and fun?

 

[_woLf]

There have been a lot of quality posts from both sides in discussing the shown PR material. You must have missed them or simply stopped reading the threads that provide the reasons for the criticisms? In my experience there have been many long-winded dissections on why this game simply doesn't look very creative or innovative in what should have been a reboot of the series.

In any case, the reason why this game gets so much flak is two-fold:

• For one, it represents everything that is wrong with AAA games these days: Arbitrary XP grinding, linear setpiece level design, ultra violence, ludonarrative dissonance, pandering female objectification, optional tombs, shameless ripoffs from Uncharted (multiplayer, train/plane climbing), etc.
• Secondly it isn't a justifiable change of direction for the fans of the series - i.e. a reboot is a fine idea and a fresh change of pace is definitely much more preferable than stagnation of the same formula. Yet the problem is that they reboot the game into another generic cinematic shooter with borrowed tacked-on mechanics from other popular AAA games. The survival-horror open-world concept they had in mind in the leaked concept arts was much more impressive and interesting and I'd bet that fans would be much more forthcoming towards such a change of direction.

The two above deficiencies motivate a lot of different people with different tastes into bringing their critical assessment to bear.

The "quality posts" are hard to filter out of the 90% troll posts. And I couldn't disagree more, when I played the game at PAX I really enjoyed it, and I have no problem with any of the things they added. Can't wait for it to come out.

edit: let me clear, I do think that the devs have said some pretty fucking stupid things about the game, and I wish they'd just stop talking. But the game looks, sounds, and plays awesome in my opinion, and I'm not going to throw that all away because the devs keep opening their mouths.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

GAF has become incredibly unreasonable with the hate surrounding this game. It's hard to have a discussion without it spiraling out of control with troll posts and "hurr can I protect it" bullshit. It's GAF.

The protect it stuff stopped being funny after like the first time.

Trouble is now, a show of detailed discontent is responded to with an effortless complete dismissal. I've written two or three diatribes so far and the usual responses are "this series isn't for you anymore" or "haters gonna hate, screw GAF hivemind".

It's at the point now that I'm going to have to write two impressions of this game, one where I get into my experience with the series and why it was important to me, and one where I pretend I've been in a cave for 20 years.

 

[Puppet Shadow]

what if the game is actually good and fun?

I think letting reviewers have a week with it before release is a great sign that this will be a good game. It's the first Tomb Raider game in years that I've considered picking up.

 

[Shinta]

I think the game's going to deliver. That latest combat video really, really impressed me. Some of those kills were insane, and it all looks so fluid. Looks like the kind of game I'd replay several times.

I was watching the video thinking to myself, "wouldn't it be awesome if they even went as far as to give her some melee counters?" Then a few minutes later, the video said she has multiple counters that can be upgraded. Yeah, I'm sold.

I'm just worried the game will be a bit short. Other than that, looks awesome.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Uncharted was boring because gameplay took a backseat to presentation. This game probably isn't goin to even nail the presentation part of it.

I would have bought an actual tomb raider game. This just blends in to the thousand other setpiece focused cover shooters out there. Yawn.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

There have been a lot of quality posts from both sides in discussing the shown PR material. You must have missed them or simply stopped reading the threads that provide the reasons for the criticisms? In my experience there have been many long-winded dissections on why this game simply doesn't look very creative or innovative in what should have been a reboot of the series.

In any case, the reason why this game gets so much flak is two-fold:

• For one, it represents everything that is wrong with AAA games these days: Arbitrary XP grinding, linear setpiece level design, ultra violence, ludonarrative dissonance, pandering female objectification, optional tombs, shameless ripoffs from Uncharted (multiplayer, train/plane climbing), etc.
• Secondly it isn't a justifiable change of direction for the fans of the series - i.e. a reboot is a fine idea and a fresh change of pace is definitely much more preferable than stagnation of the same formula. Yet the problem is that they reboot the game into another generic cinematic shooter with borrowed tacked-on mechanics from other popular AAA games. The survival-horror open-world concept they had in mind in the leaked concept arts was much more impressive and interesting and I'd bet that fans would be much more forthcoming towards such a change of direction.

The two above deficiencies motivate a lot of different people with different tastes into bringing their critical assessment to bear.

I don't think those things are neccessarily bad. If it's done really well and it's really fun than I don't see how those can be problems.

I remember people knocking on Uncharted as a Tomb Raider clone when it was first revealed. Since it was so good, everyone started claiming it's what Tomb Raider should've been. When Underworld came out, it was torn apart and didn't meet expectations. Legends was the reboot and it was successful, but clearly the formula and gameplay is dated now in this Call of Duty age we're in.

So I can't blame the developers for trying to follow Uncharted's success. The two are very similar concepts since they both rip-off Indiana Jones. Uncharted took the Tomb Raider formula and evolved it to modern gaming's standards, and now it's returning the favor back to the original that it was inspired from.

On a side note, would have loved to see a good modern day Indiana Jones game. I'm sure it would be like Uncharted and would be really fun if it was done right.

 

[Shinta]

It's at the point now that I'm going to have to write two impressions of this game, one where I get into my experience with the series and why it was important to me, and one where I pretend I've been in a cave for 20 years.

So you mean one where you trash a good game for not matching the name on the box, and one where you actually fairly review the game ?

 

[IrishNinja]

tricky i shadow post if you're okay

 

[Shinta]

This just blends in to the thousand other setpiece focused cover shooters out there. Yawn.

Does it? In all the videos I saw, cover fell apart after one or two shots most times. Plus you're using a bow, stealth, rope arrows, fire arrows, a lot of melee.

 

[walking fiend]

lol@ the the 'unbiased review' bar at the bottom

 

[djshauny]

Cant wait to play this.

Been keeping away from the videos etc

Dont want to spoil myself like usual

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

So you mean, one where you actually fairly review the game, and one where you trash a good game for not matching the name on the box?

What profession, relationship, situation, decision, role, science, investigation, or intellectual pursuit in the history of the universe has been improved by actively expunging your entire body of personal experience?

Why must the burden of considering differing perceptions of this game rest solely on those who have reservations about its potential to be good?

 

[Meatvillain]

I'm expecting it to be a pretty good game, but I'm not expecting brilliance (would love to be surprised). Looking forward to the game hitting, though.

 

[Shinta]

What profession, relationship, situation, decision, role, science, investigation, or intellectual pursuit in the history of the universe has been improved by actively expunging your entire body of personal experience?

Why must the burden of considering differing perceptions of this game rest solely on those who have reservations about its potential to be good?

Who is talking about expunging their body of personal experience? I just mean, there are really two ways to think about any long running series.

1) You can review the game for what it actually is, and honestly assess whether or not it's fun, works well, has some cool shit in it.

2) You can review the game based on the standards and content of previous games in the series. This means that even if a game is well made, it can get docked heavily because it does not do the same things people expected based on past games.

Personally, I always, always, always go with number 1. Furthermore, I think that people who go with number 2 are one of the greatest problems with gaming these days. Final Fantasy XIII, Resident Evil 6, Tomb Raider reboot and on and on. All games that bring a lot of interesting stuff to the table and are well made for the most part. But they get savaged by purists who want something that plays like the previous 10 games in the series or else they tear it apart.

After a while, a long running series turns into less of an asset for promotion and more into a noose around the creator's necks. It's just sad.

Playing Tomb Raider for what it is does not mean you lived in a cave for 20 years.

 

[zychi]

The game has leaked, expect people to start spoiling stuff on youtube/other forums.

I've been looking forward to this reboot, even if it's all hand holding, so I'm officially going on blackout mode.

 

[Represent.]

Combat / Exploration vids sold me. Dayyyy 1

 

[toastyToast]

I resigned myself to the fact that this is essentially a Rambo game

Now I'm looking forward to being Rambo Lara

 

[wenis]

As long as reviews stay positive I won't regret my blind pre-order.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Who is talking about expunging their body of personal experience? I just mean, there are really two ways to think about any long running series.

1) You can review the game for what it actually is, and honestly assess whether or not it's fun, works well, has some cool shit in it.

2) You can review the game based on the standards and content of previous games in the series. This means that even if a game is well made, it can get docked heavily because it does not do the same things people expected based on past games.

Personally, I always, always, always go with number 1. Furthermore, I think that people who go with number 2 are one of the greatest problems with gaming these days. Final Fantasy XIII, Resident Evil 6, Tomb Raider reboot and on and on. All games that bring a lot of interesting stuff to the table and are well made for the most part. But they get savaged by purists who want something that plays like the previous 10 games in the series or else they tear it apart.

After a while, a long running series turns into less of an asset for promotion and more into a noose around the creator's necks. It's just sad.

Playing Tomb Raider for what it is does not mean you lived in a cave for 20 years.

I'm just sick of getting told I've shut my ears and turned off my brain by people who won't do me the courtesy of considering both of these points of view when they expect me to.

Your stance that only your #1 is necessary to give a fair assessment of the game is what I disagree with. Both would be necessary for a fair assessment in my book. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to argue solely from either perspective, but not even thinking the other side worthy of consideration would be folly.