Support NeoGAF

[RagnarokX]

I'm finding the gameplay to be quite fun actually. Nothing groundbreaking, but does every game have to be? It's just fun.

I really like the physics and animation of Lara herself, the way she controls.

It's a very dumb game that doesn't challenge the player with a very bad story and characters. Considering its pedigree it's a very sad state of affairs. No more searching ancient ruins and exotic locales for your path an skillfully platforming through challenging levels. Just follow the obvious paths marked with glowing white paint and let Lara magnetically climb her way around. Don't have to think about where to go and you have to try to fail to get there. Almost no puzzles; and the few that are there hardly take up any of your time as they are pitifully small and easy. All in favor of focusing on repetitive combat against the same AI dudes over and over and over and running down exploding hallways. You have multiple weapons but they don't matter. They're mostly just keys for the doors that you don't encounter until after you find the weapons that open them so they can say the game has "gear gating" and make people think it's a metroidvania and open. None of the collectibles are well hidden or challenging to obtain and the rpg elements add nothing of real value apart from a skill that lets you slog through the combat faster that you can only unlock by buying all of the other useless skills.

Not every game has to make you think for more than a second or be very challenging, but this is supposed to be Tomb Raider. And as far as dumbing down goes this one is insultingly so. It's like they made these well-made mechanics and stuff and forgot to make a game with them. It's like a proof of concept for what they could make with 12 hours of very basic shooting as filler.

 

[DEADEVIL]

I do not like when reviewers put a monetary value on the enjoyment of a game. Stop assuming everyone has the same financial status. We don't need a reviewer to tell us the value of our disposable income, and how to spend it. So no, despite it offering nothing really new over last year's game I will be buying it next week when it launches in the UK.

Apart from this small moan seems the game is reviewing well, which was expected. Can't wait to replay it again.

This

 

[Shahed]

This really should have been a budget release. It just feels liek a rip off, charging full price for the same game with minor upgrades. HD Remasters have more work put into them and they usually retail for £25 - £30 :/

For two games as well!

I suppose the added value is all the DLC being bundled with it. But that's mostly all multiplayer stuff. If there were worthwhile single player additions, I might have bought this

 

[Mozendo]

I prefer Lara's non-definitive version face, so guess I'll stick with the PC version.
Although I really like how the wind / trees moves.

Edit:

 

[frontieruk]

Never played the original, and am truly exited for the PS4 version. I've been playing Battlefield 4 way too much lately, time for something new!

And get that PC stuff out of here, Junior.

For juniors, it always is. One image is enough.

Anyway, again, if you have the pc version there isn't much reason to buy the same game again.

Keep that junior shit out of here, there are plenty of 'members' saying the same sort of things.

I prefer Lara's non-definitive version face, so guess I'll stick with the PC version.
Although I really like how the wind moves.

Yeah it adds atmosphere shame their don't seen plans to port to pc

 

[walltowall]

3 from the escapist has got to be a joke.

I agree that there is a disconnect.

Read the review. Context always helps.

First, it's Jim Sterling, which will tell you that his reviews can often equate to a statement about the game as much, if not more, than of the game itself.

Next, he rated it a 3/5 due it having a duality in value. On one hand, if you haven't played the other options currently out there and for cheaper, than it may be a good choice. But it's not a replayability juggernaut and has the same issues as the last gen versions did that make it hardly a worthwhile purchase for those who've dipped into the pool before.

I'll buy it somewhere down the line, as I've waited this long already.

But seriously, read the review and stop getting hung up on a score and having us explain it to you.

Perhaps the reader, writer and developer would be better served by him giving the game a higher score based on its merits as a game but with the caveat of not recommending the double dip. Giving it a 3/5 does makes him look petty or perhaps being provocative for clicks.

But the game is even better than what most already considered it as the GOTY. How can it be a 3/5?

They gave the original a 5/5. I don't care how good he thinks the value is. You can't give the original a 5 then this a 3. The graphical differences are incredible.

You could if you had a different reviewer but it should come with some editorial justification.

They have the original a 5/5.... Is this version really 40% worse?

It's a 3 out of 5 if you've already bought the game. Is that really so difficult to understand? There's no need to trouble yourselves over this games Metacritic score. It'll sell regardless.

So if I own the game it's a 3 but if I don't it's a 5? That is difficult to understand. How does the game become worse?

Some folks take reviews and what...game commentators/journalists say way too personally.

This is the thing that is worrisome. The game is made "better" by its graphical polish. But is essentially the same game + DLC. He gives it a bad score but praises it. The disconnect is that the 3/5 goes to Metacritic and potentially affects compensation of the devs. If this were a trend in reviewing it would be disturbing, luckily it isn't and this is one time that I have to say that Sterling's schtick is short sighted.

You don't doc the game points for being a rerelease, when it's being clear about what it is. It's not like they're calling it a sequel and shoving the same game out the door.
But hey it's January, what else is he gonna do..........

Some game commentators/journalists take themselves way too personally.

 

[DryvBy]

Why not just mod the game? I've seen so many console threads with PC gamers talking about mods that will make their games look better than any remake.

Spoiler

lol

 

[RetroStu]

Keep that junior shit out of here, there are plenty of 'members' saying the same sort of things.

I hate the elitism attitude from some members on here, like some people opinions mean more than others.
Its bullshit and a bit cringeworthy to be honest.

 

[jakonovski]

The idea that game reviewers should protect developer salaries is kind of insane. If Jim Sterling felt that three stars was appropriate to describe the situation, that's what it is.

 

[flatearthpandas]

They have the original a 5/5.... Is this version really 40% worse?

At $60, yes.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. I literally just don't understand how people are getting upset about this.

 

[kyser73]

Yeah that's annoying as well. I was more referring to her accent though. It doesn't sound properly English. It always sounded wrong to me as if someone was putting on an accent. Well to my ears anyway

As an Englishman, I can say that she sounds exactly as I would expect someone called Camilla Luddington, who'd been to an all-girls school in Ascot - to sound. Not quite RP, but home counties posh girl.

 

[Majanew]

Will buy. Just not sure at what price yet since I beat the game on 360.

 

[Xenon]

Not really sure how The Escapist can give it a 3 then say it's a must purchase for anyone who hasn't played the original?

His review seems to have echoed the thoughts about the game here. Well, before it became a talking point of the console war. The game is a cash in taking advantage of the new generation software drought. Nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with calling Crystal Dynamics out for it.

 

[Shahed]

As an Englishman, I can say that she sounds exactly as I would expect someone called Camilla Luddington, who'd been to an all-girls school in Ascot - to sound. Not quite RP, but home counties posh girl.

Fair enough. I've just never met anyone over here who had an accent like that. Or maybe it's my disconnect with the voice given to a younger Lara and that I'm used to the previous kind of voices to a degree. I've talked with people who had accents pretty much like the old Lara voices, but never with someone like Camilla's Lara. It just didn't sound familiar is all. Admittedly I'm from further north in England, but my friends and some family from down south expressed similar views.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

If this is how close they are I don't know why anyone's bothering to compare them.

 

[walltowall]

The idea that game reviewers should protect developer salaries is kind of insane. If Jim Sterling felt that three stars was appropriate to describe the situation, that's what it is.

What is he reviewing? The "situation" or the game?
You can score the game appropriately and give an opinion on not liking double dips but it's a shame to score the game poorly but in your copy praise all of the facets of the game.

 

[jakonovski]

What is he reviewing? The "situation" or the game?
You can score the game appropriately and give an opinion on not liking double dips but it's a shame to score the game poorly but in your copy praise all of the facets of the game.

It seems clear to me that he is in fact reviewing the situation. And there is nothing wrong with doing that. As always, you have to read the review.

 

[theytookourjobz]

This isn't like Diablo 3 coming to consoles where everyone who didn't have a PC couldn't experience it until then. I would assume that most people who own PS4s and XB1s either had a 360 or PS3 last year or still have one and as such can or could have bought the SAME game for 1/4 the price of the "Definitive Edition".

 

[LiquidSolid]

But the game is even better than what most already considered it as the GOTY. How can it be a 3/5?

They gave the original a 5/5. I don't care how good he thinks the value is. You can't give the original a 5 then this a 3. The graphical differences are incredible.

Huh? What world are you living in?

Fair enough. I've just never met anyone over here who had an accent like that. Or maybe it's my disconnect with the voice given to a younger Lara and that I'm used to the previous kind of voices to a degree. I've talked with people who had accents pretty much like the old Lara voices, but never with like Camilla's Lara. It just didn't sound familiar is all. Admittedly I'm from further north in England, but my friends and some family from down south expressed sinilar views.

Could be that she's lived in the US so long that her natural accent has changed. I notice it a lot with Aus/NZ voice actors, like Vanille in FFXIII.

 

[walltowall]

It seems clear to me that he is in fact reviewing the situation. And there is nothing wrong with doing that. As always, you have to read the review.

I did read it and that's where I have the problem. When I clicked on it my intention was to read a review of the game. He did that but then based his score on the situation. He could just as easily reviewed the game on its merits and state his opinion on the situation itself.

Editorially it's a slippery slope. It was a 5 when it was a $60 game at launch and it's a 3 when it's a $60 rerelease with improvements and dlc added in? Please. So a product lost 40% of its review score because it's too expensive? Right...........

 

[PairOfFilthySocks]

I'm not against the concept of 'remastered' re-releases of titles, but this is just about the shittiest way to go about it I could possibly imagine. 60 dollars is an utterly absurd price to set for such a release. The extra visual effects look really nice(aside from Lara's new face, which looks like the result of upper management poking their head in the devs' door and shouting to make her hotter), but refusing to offer them to users with more than capable machines is nonsense.

Again, 60 dollars for a re-release. Chump-friendly tactics.

 

[QaaQer]

Keep that junior shit out of here, there are plenty of 'members' saying the same sort of things.

His point was: using a gif for definitive statements is silly, as in 'i haven't been here long' silly.

 

[MMaRsu]

The performance of the console ports does a great job indicating what a developer can do in a closed box in comparison to an off the shelf GPU. PS4 and Xbox One are punching far above their weight class. I wish someone would do the math and post which GPU they perform favorably to.

But please developers, do not let shadows go to the ugly wayside. Shadows add that oomph to the image.

Welcome back thuway!

 

[Marvel]

Pretty game, ugly price.

 

[muzzymate]

I just bought a Tomb Raider Steam key for $4. Is this worth the extra $56?

/s

 

[Asd202]

So any review mentions the FPS disparities?

 

[benny_a]

His point was: using a gif for definitive statements is silly, as in 'i haven't been here long' silly.

A gif can show a lot, like the one in the OP about the wind effects.

Of course we've had like 30 screenshots posted in the various TR threads and the motivation for grabbing that specific comparison is probably not because one wants to honestly assess the difference.

 

[Amir0x]

It's a very dumb game that doesn't challenge the player with a very bad story and characters. Considering its pedigree it's a very sad state of affairs. No more searching ancient ruins and exotic locales for your path an skillfully platforming through challenging levels. Just follow the obvious paths marked with glowing white paint and let Lara magnetically climb her way around. Don't have to think about where to go and you have to try to fail to get there. Almost no puzzles; and the few that are there hardly take up any of your time as they are pitifully small and easy. All in favor of focusing on repetitive combat against the same AI dudes over and over and over and running down exploding hallways. You have multiple weapons but they don't matter. They're mostly just keys for the doors that you don't encounter until after you find the weapons that open them so they can say the game has "gear gating" and make people think it's a metroidvania and open. None of the collectibles are well hidden or challenging to obtain and the rpg elements add nothing of real value apart from a skill that lets you slog through the combat faster that you can only unlock by buying all of the other useless skills.

Not every game has to make you think for more than a second or be very challenging, but this is supposed to be Tomb Raider. And as far as dumbing down goes this one is insultingly so. It's like they made these well-made mechanics and stuff and forgot to make a game with them. It's like a proof of concept for what they could make with 12 hours of very basic shooting as filler.

The fight is lost, Ragnarok. We turn now to indies to get the formula right and understand quality gameplay

 

[belmonkey]

The performance of the console ports does a great job indicating what a developer can do in a closed box in comparison to an off the shelf GPU. PS4 and Xbox One are punching far above their weight class. I wish someone would do the math and post which GPU they perform favorably to.

But please developers, do not let shadows go to the ugly wayside. Shadows add that oomph to the image.

In this game in particular, it's difficult to say what GPU the consoles are performing similarly to, because some effects aren't even on PC to test. Historically, the consoles handled multi-plats (BF4) at setings matchable by "weaker" GPUs, but games that are more next-gen (Killzone, etc) fair more favourably in comparison.

 

[Vizzeh]

So any review mentions the FPS disparates?

Digital foundry has gotta be doing one. Im sure they sense the urge to feed the fps debate with the attention they could get

 

[MilkBeard]

It's a very dumb game that doesn't challenge the player with a very bad story and characters. Considering its pedigree it's a very sad state of affairs. No more searching ancient ruins and exotic locales for your path an skillfully platforming through challenging levels. Just follow the obvious paths marked with glowing white paint and let Lara magnetically climb her way around. Don't have to think about where to go and you have to try to fail to get there. Almost no puzzles; and the few that are there hardly take up any of your time as they are pitifully small and easy. All in favor of focusing on repetitive combat against the same AI dudes over and over and over and running down exploding hallways. You have multiple weapons but they don't matter. They're mostly just keys for the doors that you don't encounter until after you find the weapons that open them so they can say the game has "gear gating" and make people think it's a metroidvania and open. None of the collectibles are well hidden or challenging to obtain and the rpg elements add nothing of real value apart from a skill that lets you slog through the combat faster that you can only unlock by buying all of the other useless skills.

Not every game has to make you think for more than a second or be very challenging, but this is supposed to be Tomb Raider. And as far as dumbing down goes this one is insultingly so. It's like they made these well-made mechanics and stuff and forgot to make a game with them. It's like a proof of concept for what they could make with 12 hours of very basic shooting as filler.

No, no I don't agree with you at all. It's definitely not a 40 hour, deep adventure but it's a fun game and there's enough exploration that's satisfying. I never was a fan of Tomb Raider before so I think this is a good reboot. I don't think every game has to be this super deep thing, nor do I think every game should be like Uncharted. But what can I say, I like this game. It's fun.

It's your opinion, I understand. But 'dumbed down' and 'constant fighting' are not things I would use to describe it. You don't have to look at the marker if you don't want, and there are tightly controlled moments of intense combat, but I've spent more time exploring areas. I've died a number of times, some of them were cheap deaths though, I do admit. I'm not a huge fan of quick time events, but they usually don't last that long either.

I've actually had a lot of fun with the climbing, jumping around and investigating small tombs. There's room for improvement, sure, but I think you're opinion is a tad on the negative side and not really representative of the game.

And while I think your comment about the game being a 'proof of concept' is a tad hyperbolic, I do think in a sequel they will be able to dig deeper into the new gameplay they've created. It's hard to say what direction they will take, but it would be cool to see bigger, deeper tombs. I enjoyed those moments where I was figuring out the landscape and I think the tombs could definitely expand.

 

[flattie]

Perhaps the reader, writer and developer would be better served by him giving the game a higher score based on its merits as a game but with the caveat of not recommending the double dip. Giving it a 3/5 does makes him look petty or perhaps being provocative for clicks.

You could if you had a different reviewer but it should come with some editorial justification.

So if I own the game it's a 3 but if I don't it's a 5? That is difficult to understand. How does the game become worse?

This is the thing that is worrisome. The game is made "better" by its graphical polish. But is essentially the same game + DLC. He gives it a bad score but praises it. The disconnect is that the 3/5 goes to Metacritic and potentially affects compensation of the devs. If this were a trend in reviewing it would be disturbing, luckily it isn't and this is one time that I have to say that Sterling's schtick is short sighted.

You don't doc the game points for being a rerelease, when it's being clear about what it is. It's not like they're calling it a sequel and shoving the same game out the door.
But hey it's January, what else is he gonna do..........

Some game commentators/journalists take themselves way too personally.

I agree that there is, on the surface, a logical disconnect here, although certainly don't begrudge Sterlings' right to an opinion based on the whole product value proposition as opposed to the isolated technical merits of the game. I would also point out though, that game scores are derived from the overall experience taken by the player (reviewer) and as such, should a game that has recently already given up its whole experience, be able to command the same (or better) score as it would have done when freshly served; particularly one which relies so heavily on cinematic set pieces and linear story telling?

A lot of people seem to struggling, logically, with the change in scores. If enough people can't accept the criteria by which he came to his score, then maybe the answer is that this game shouldn't be getting reviewed at all. If people aren't comfortable with the value proposition being used to help arrive at a number, then maybe reviewers should be doing no more than amending their original reviews?

Also, your point ref metacritc; while it might sound harsh, it's not JS's, or any reviewer's, job to make sure devs meet their milestones. His job is to score a game based on his opinion. If that ends up having a disproportionate affect on the developer's recompense, then the flaw is very much of the system.

 

[QaaQer]

the motivation for grabbing that specific comparison is probably not because one wants to honestly assess the difference.

Bingo.

 

[jakonovski]

I did read it and that's where I have the problem. When I clicked on it my intention was to read a review of the game. He did that but then based his score on the situation. He could just as easily reviewed the game on its merits and state his opinion on the situation itself.

Editorially it's a slippery slope. It was a 5 when it was a $60 game at launch and it's a 3 when it's a $60 rerelease with improvements and dlc added in? Please. So a product lost 40% of its review score because it's too expensive? Right...........

At this point you're just angry because the review didn't agree with you (or meet your expectations). I feel Sterling outlined his case pretty well, and the review is completely ok.

 

[Kamina]

At this point you're just angry because the review didn't agree with you. I feel Sterling outlined his case pretty well, and the review is completely ok.

The price-point however shouldn't influence the rating of a games content though. it being 20 bucks too expensive doesn't make it worse. Furthermore, the rating will stay from now on, meaning that in a year from now someone might think about buying this game for lets say 30 at some store, checks the reviews and sees it got a 3/5 or 6/10 and is so confused that he drops the idea all together without reading the review in depth.

 

[MilkBeard]

Sterling is always the wildcard of reviewers. The more people realize that, the more we can move on. Just read it for what it's worth, sometimes you will agree with him, sometimes you'll not. He often makes bold points that are divisive.

 

[BruiserBear]

Not really sure how The Escapist can give it a 3 then say it's a must purchase for anyone who hasn't played the original?

Looking for that street cred because they're complaining about the price.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

The price-point however shouldn't influence the rating of a games content though. it being 20 bucks too expensive doesn't make it worse. Furthermore, the rating will stay from now on, meaning that in a year from now someone might think about buying this game for lets say 30 at some store, checks the reviews and sees it got a 3/5 or 6/10 and is so confused that he drops the idea all together without reading the review in depth.

While I understand this position, it is not one I can agree with. Pricing does make a difference in many cases, as to what the game is worth in terms of value / content. An example:

Journey launched at £9.99 on PS3. Would it have scored as well if it was £40. Should it have? The answer is no, because it's content is greatly lacking for such a price.

I can give you other examples of remade games not being half the price they were launched at, because although the quality of the game is consistent, it's valuing for it's content changes over time. No one want's to pay the same for a disk full of new content, as a disc full of mostly old. This is why we have such anger at games that just update a roster each year, and these games are punished in score for doing so.

New content has a greater value than old content, monetary and otherwise. As consumers, we require new content to consume for our money. A review score should always reflect this in my opinion. It isn't about judging a readers monetary situation. It is about judging the publishers greed for a high price over a lack of new content.

 

[Hagi]

The price-point however shouldn't influence the rating of a games content though. it being 20 bucks too expensive doesn't make it worse. Furthermore, the rating will stay from now on, meaning that in a year from now someone might think about buying this game for lets say 30 at some store, checks the reviews and sees it got a 3/5 or 6/10 and is so confused that he drops the idea all together without reading the review in depth.

Maybe said person should look at more than one review to base his purchase on or better yet not use reviews at all.

 

[jakonovski]

The price-point however shouldn't influence the rating of a games content though. it being 20 bucks too expensive doesn't make it worse. Furthermore, the rating will stay from now on, meaning that in a year from now someone might think about buying this game for lets say 30 at some store, checks the reviews and sees it got a 3/5 or 6/10 and is so confused that he drops the idea all together without reading the review in depth.

I agree that a price argument starts losing relevanc as time passes, but that's why you have to read the reviews. Not reading them yet basing one's decisions on them is an entirely self inflicted form of stupidity.

 

[ShadyJ]

It really should have been a $40 title or less.

Good to see the console guys can play it on PC level settings.

 

[Gibbo]

It really should have been a $40 title or less.

Good to see the console guys can play it on PC level settings.

Yup- I played and completed the PC version on max settings (only TressFX off).I would have double dipped on the PS4 version at $40.

 

[BigTnaples]

The game is clearly better looking on PC for anyone who has played it on PC, due to the higher resolution textures and DX11 effects.

That said, the improvements in DE are nothing to scoff at (new Lara model is impressive), and for a $400 machine you can't go wrong.

No it's not.


I have the PC version, have played it on Ultra. Isn't as impressive aside from pure IQ (played at 1080p).

PS4 version feels much more "alive" and the added effects really do make a huge difference.


And then there is 60FPS, while yes, possible on PC, 95% of people won't be able to hit on PC.


My PC makes the PS4 look like a McDonalds happy meal toy, and it still can't get 60FPS, even with some settings lowered, and tessellation off.

 

[ShadyJ]

Yup- I played and completed the PC version on max settings (only TressFX off).I would have double dipped on the PS4 version at $40.

I still haven't played it on my PC and have a 780ti now so ill be smashing this with everything maxed on my TV.

But that Xbone gif looks nice with the trees swaying etc.

 

[Canis lupus]

PC (max settings):

Xbox One:

Wow the Xbone version looks so much better than the PC, never thought I would be able to say that.

Kinda regret not ordering the PS4 version at Amazon while it was 37 quid.

 

[IvorB]

Looks like this in only 40 quid on Amazon. Could consider this if I see it in the twenties and there is still nothing truly next gen to play.

 

[IvorB]

No it's not.


I have the PC version, have played it on Ultra. Isn't as impressive aside from pure IQ (played at 1080p).

PS4 version feels much more "alive" and the added effects really do make a huge difference.


And then there is 60FPS, while yes, possible on PC, 95% of people won't be able to hit on PC.


My PC makes the PS4 look like a McDonalds happy meal toy, and it still can't get 60FPS, even with some settings lowered, and tessellation off.

The miracle of proper developer optimisation. I wonder how much hardware advantage the lack of proper dev optimisation negates when moving between PC and console.

 

[Betta Lines]

Wow the Xbone version looks so much better than the PC, never thought I would be able to say that.

If the PC version was running the same updates to the game, you wouldn't. There's no amazing achievement going on here...

 

[TGO]

This really should have been a budget release. It just feels liek a rip off, charging full price for the same game with minor upgrades. HD Remasters have more work put into them and they usually retail for £25 - £30 :/

There's more work done in this then any HD Master, FFX HD is probley the only one that comes close
If they just HD'ed it and added TressFX it would look like the PC version and that would be rip off

 

[Jill Sandwich]

Looks like this in only 40 quid on Amazon. Could consider this if I see it in the twenties and there is still nothing truly next gen to play.

Well, you could go to Tesco Direct and use this code TDX-HQ9T at the checkout to get it for £35, if that code is still good.