Why do people think Tomb Raider is so good?

  • 71 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Pffrbt (6594 posts) -

It's a good game, but it doesn't do anything noteworthy really. It's such a generic experience that doesn't stand out in any way. The story is predictable and not really well written, the graphics lack polish and the art suffers from a case of the browns, and it plays more or less exactly like several other shooters.

#2 Posted by wis3boi (31820 posts) -

It's a much needed reboot for the series.  The past games almost always revolved around the same block pattern layouts and puzzles and lacked any grit.  The new reboot feels a lot more like an achaeology dig than the others.  I just hope the next one adds some more tombs and perhaps a new level akin to the TR III Area 51 mission.

#3 Posted by Pffrbt (6594 posts) -

Being a good reboot doesn't really make it all that special of a game though.

#4 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18908 posts) -
It's an excellent game, my only problems with it are the main character, who lacks any sort of personality, the plot, which is a big cliché and the undercooked survival aspect (which is hardly there at all). Other than that, platforming, shooting, visuals and sound design are all great.
#5 Posted by Legolas_Katarn (15592 posts) -
It was definitely better than past Tomb Raider games but it was pretty average.
#6 Posted by Pffrbt (6594 posts) -

While I was playing it I couldn't help but feel I was playing "Generic AAA game: The Game".

#7 Posted by sukraj (23648 posts) -

I like this reboot its my fav 3rd person game.

#8 Posted by Canuck3000 (40562 posts) -
I didn't think it was amazing either. Gameplay was alright, but it wasn't anything fantastic. The story also wasn't that interesting either. Thought they did a poor job with Lara's character. Turns into a killing machine overnight. It made me want to play Uncharted more then anything
#9 Posted by Pffrbt (6594 posts) -

The only thing I felt Tomb Raider did better than Uncharted was that climbing felt more flexible and environments were a bit more open.

Tomb Raider doesn't really do anything worthwhile with its open environments though besides give the player a checklist of collectables to try and drag out play time.

#10 Posted by cdragon_88 (1257 posts) -

While I was playing it I couldn't help but feel I was playing "Generic AAA game: The Game".

Pffrbt

Sums it up.

#11 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

Why do people think Tomb Raider is so good?

Pffrbt

 

It's a good game

Pffrbt

#12 Posted by Lucianu (9538 posts) -

It was definitely better than past Tomb Raider games but it was pretty average.Legolas_Katarn

Tomb Raider: Anniversary is a much better traditional action-adventure game than the Tomb Raider reboot could ever hope to be. Satisfying, logical puzzle solving with fantastic level design that actually encouraged you to solve them thus never getting lost, engrossing exploration that kept you glued on the screen, fantastic platforming that always seemed fluid to do. At least that was my experience with Anniversary. 

Though yeah, if people want heavily cinematic design complemented by straight up action sequences, with a little sprinkle of filler exploration 'n platforming, there's nothing to do. That's what sells. 

#13 Posted by burgeg (3599 posts) -

[QUOTE="Legolas_Katarn"]It was definitely better than past Tomb Raider games but it was pretty average.Lucianu

Tomb Raider: Anniversary is a much better traditional action-adventure game than the Tomb Raider reboot could ever hope to be. Satisfying, logical puzzle solving with fantastic level design that actually encouraged you to solve them thus never getting lost, engrossing exploration that kept you glued on the screen, fantastic platforming that always seemed fluid to do. At least that was my experience with Anniversary. 

Though yeah, if people want heavily cinematic design complemented by straight up action sequences, with a little sprinkle of filler exploration 'n platforming, there's nothing to do. That's what sells. 

So much truth. Anniversary blows the reboot out of the water so much it's depressing. The worst part about all of this is that because the reboot was such a success, Crystal Dynamics are so going to get the wrong idea for the sequel. We'll most likely get another generic cinematic experience instead of a great Tomb Raider game.

Also I'd just like to point out the downloadable game Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light was a great game. Far better than the generic cinematic bullcrap the reboot was.

#14 Posted by mooooo99 (1249 posts) -

why are other peoples opinions wrong?

i found it to be a good solid game. and was much needed for the series.  i prefer the new lara croft to the previous games and i just hope that i dont see jolie in the next film..

#16 Posted by Legolas_Katarn (15592 posts) -

[QUOTE="Lucianu"]

[QUOTE="Legolas_Katarn"]It was definitely better than past Tomb Raider games but it was pretty average.burgeg

Tomb Raider: Anniversary is a much better traditional action-adventure game than the Tomb Raider reboot could ever hope to be. Satisfying, logical puzzle solving with fantastic level design that actually encouraged you to solve them thus never getting lost, engrossing exploration that kept you glued on the screen, fantastic platforming that always seemed fluid to do. At least that was my experience with Anniversary. 

Though yeah, if people want heavily cinematic design complemented by straight up action sequences, with a little sprinkle of filler exploration 'n platforming, there's nothing to do. That's what sells. 

So much truth. Anniversary blows the reboot out of the water so much it's depressing. The worst part about all of this is that because the reboot was such a success, Crystal Dynamics are so going to get the wrong idea for the sequel. We'll most likely get another generic cinematic experience instead of a great Tomb Raider game.

Also I'd just like to point out the downloadable game Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light was a great game. Far better than the generic cinematic bullcrap the reboot was.

I forgot about Anniversary, I think that was the only one I didn't either play or see being played.

I forgot why but I really didn't like Guardian of Light, though I did think it was the best Tomb Raider game I played.

#17 Posted by Lucianu (9538 posts) -

I forgot about Anniversary, I think that was the only one I didn't either play or see being played.

I forgot why but I really didn't like Guardian of Light, though I did think it was the best Tomb Raider game I played.

Legolas_Katarn

It's better to know what you're getting into if you ever plan to play it, so it's best to tell you that Anniversary is all about gymnastics style platforming, puzzle solving and exploration, with a little bit of combat thrown in.. so if you think those elements are 'bore-fests', i don't recommend it. 

Now me, i loved it. Exploring the fantastic, varied and interesting environments by means of the fluid platforming was an eye-orgasmic experience, and seeing them 'tick' with those puzzles was brilliant. Mostly because the pace was great. I was never bored.

Basically, it's a traditional action-adventure exactly like Legend of Zelda. 

#18 Posted by jsmoke03 (13075 posts) -

It's a good game, but it doesn't do anything noteworthy really. It's such a generic experience that doesn't stand out in any way. The story is predictable and not really well written, the graphics lack polish and the art suffers from a case of the browns, and it plays more or less exactly like several other shooters.

Pffrbt
not really well written? i wonder what you think a well written game is. i think it was fun and and 8.5 is worthy
#19 Posted by GameYakuza (89 posts) -

alright, it's not about Tomb raider, it's about you: first you mention what people "think", implying they're wrong. then, you list everything wrong with the game, but it's just, guess what, what you "think". the game got great reviews, if you didn't like, say so, but don't act like you know better.

#20 Posted by MonoSilver (1392 posts) -
I don't see what the fuss about it is either. They've just put Lara in a generic third person shooter full of quick time events and taken away all the atmosphere, exploration, puzzles and intelligence that was in the original games.
#21 Posted by contracts420 (1956 posts) -

I believe Tomb Raider to be a fantastic title although I must admit I was let down due to the expectations I had. Some were saying it made Uncharted "irrelevant" and does "everything better than Uncharted". Obviously I went into this title expecting it to dethrone Uncharted 3 as my favourite game.

While it's a solid title I just felt that if you boiled it down to a linear construct, it failed to match Uncharted in nearly every conceivable way. So while I think it's certianly a good game (maybe even great) it just didn't do enough to top its competition.

Speaking of Tomb Raider Anniversary, if you people haven't played it then do so. It takes the original Tomb Raider and throws out all of the issues, very enjoyable experience if you're into platforming and puzzle solving.

#22 Posted by The_Last_Ride (73949 posts) -
i love the game so far, and it's probably my GOTY. I have been impressed with what they have done with it. But hey it's only an opinion
#23 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18415 posts) -
Tomb Raider is awesome. The graphics, gameplay, gun play, characters, story, level design.. everything about the game was great.
#24 Posted by Pffrbt (6594 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pffrbt"]

Why do people think Tomb Raider is so good?

IndianaPwns39

 

It's a good game

Pffrbt

It isn't hard to see what I'm saying unless you're being willfully stupid.

While I think it's a good game, I don't see any reason to think it's *************SO*************** good that it should be considered anyone's game of the year or even a noteworthy experience in general. It's servicable and forgettable and that's it really. Not good enough to stand out.

#25 Posted by Pffrbt (6594 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pffrbt"]

It's a good game, but it doesn't do anything noteworthy really. It's such a generic experience that doesn't stand out in any way. The story is predictable and not really well written, the graphics lack polish and the art suffers from a case of the browns, and it plays more or less exactly like several other shooters.

jsmoke03

not really well written? i wonder what you think a well written game is.

Bioshock Infinite.

#26 Posted by Pffrbt (6594 posts) -

Tomb Raider is awesome. The graphics, gameplay, gun play, characters, story, level design.. everything about the game was great.Rattlesnake_8

How are any of these great though? The graphics are very unpolished and mostly brown with nothing interesting done artistically, the gameplay is a paint by numbers cinematic third person shooter with runner segments and lots of QTEs, the characters are all two dimensional and Lara barely has a personality, the story is predictable as can be and it's kind of frustrating to watch the characters struggle to put two and two together.

I just don't see how these amount to anything more than "Eh, it's good I guess". Everything is just servicable without being memorable.

Characters also look like their faces have been paralyzed in cutscenes and it's weird to watch.

#27 Posted by JustPlainLucas (74744 posts) -
Argument boils down to: "I don't understand why people had so much fun with the game." Meanwhile, those gamers are busy having fun with their games. If you can't see why the game was so good, then it's obvious it wasn't made for you.
#28 Posted by Pffrbt (6594 posts) -

Argument boils down to: "I don't understand why people had so much fun with the game."JustPlainLucas

Not really since I understand why people had fun. What I don't understand is why people think it was such a noteworthy experience.

#29 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

It isn't hard to see what I'm saying unless you're being willfully stupid.

While I think it's a good game, I don't see any reason to think it's *************SO*************** good that it should be considered anyone's game of the year or even a noteworthy experience in general. It's servicable and forgettable and that's it really. Not good enough to stand out.

Pffrbt

No I know what you're saying. You're saying "it's good, not great". I just think it's a little funny you ask the question "why do people think Tomb Raider is so good?" and then immediately acknowledge it's a good game. Is it really that hard for you to believe that other people liked it just a little bit more than you did to think it's a great game? 

But here, if you want a more concrete answer on why someone loves the game I'll give you my opinion.

First off, the level of detail is phenomenal. I was able to get lost in the world because of all the effort the developers spent making each area feel like it belongs. There's history here, and it tells a story. Where other games have random junk just scattered around, the ruins and remains in Tomb Raider are there for a reason. There were moments where I would stop and ponder what had happened before. It had this atmosphere that drew me into Lara's story and made me want to actively seek out the secrets scattered about and revisit old areas to see what else I could find. 

There were several memorable moments, at least to me. I'll never forget the time when Lara was dumped into the pool of blood, or taking on an entire town of aggressive samurai soldiers. The tombs, while short and sweet, had personality, had history. I loved picking up an object and Lara tell me what it was. I liked finding the journals and learning more about the island. Sure, the story was predictable, but it was fun, it gave me reason to keep on pushing forward. Not everything needs to be a super complex, make you think type of deal.

I also really liked the combat and thought it had a great mix of stealth, melee, and all out gun play. I found that it was very malleable to however I wanted to play at the time. I would stalk enemies at one moment, run in guns blazing another, or see how many foes I could stab in the knee before moving on. I was a huge fan of QTEs being designated to a particular button. Everytime I had to quickly press something it was triangle, if I had to mash the button it was also square. That made QTEs much more enjoyable instead of focusing on the prompt and ignore what was happening on screen.

I really liked the progression system as well. Upgrading weapons was fun, although they could have focused more on the animal hunting and survival skills, I did feel that unlocking new skills felt like natural progression for Lara's adaptive response to combat. I also really liked that Lara keeps her scars throughout the course of the game. By the end of it, it just looked like she had been through hell.

So yeah, I loved Tomb Raider for a lot of reasons. I enjoyed my time with it, and I'm getting ready to start my hard playthrough on the game and I'm sure I'll love it even more.

#30 Posted by kickingcarpet (570 posts) -

I think what the OP is trying to say is he misses when Lara Croft looked like a bar whore. 

#31 Posted by gamingqueen (31076 posts) -

Solidarity post here. I agree. I've been a long time Tomb Raider fan and I like the older games more than Crystal Dynamics'. All I have to say that some people aren't there to make memorable experience, they just want commercially successful games. What used to be a unique experience, gameplay, rich and loaded gameplay, character, soundtrack with haunting tunes is now a wannabe uncharted with a woman instead of a man. There used to be so much narrative and in every level, the masks gunmen wearing in the Italian levels, climbing chandeliers, each gameplay segment had a story. Look at it now... bah

#32 Posted by famicommander (8524 posts) -
The same reason people like Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, and Uncharted. It's designed for the lowest common denominator.
#33 Posted by immortality20 (7958 posts) -

I think it's good because it's good. Pretty simple reasons: great story, graphics, game play, voice acting and pacing. Combat is fun and I never got bored. My review was mostly all positive (besides multiplayer) and I gave it a 9.

#34 Posted by koospetoors (3245 posts) -
It's an excellent game, my only problems with it are the main character, who lacks any sort of personality, the plot, which is a big cliché and the undercooked survival aspect (which is hardly there at all). Other than that, platforming, shooting, visuals and sound design are all great.Black_Knight_00
Wait wait wait.... the game had a survival aspect?! Anyway, It was a pretty solid game though, nothing really noteworthy but definitely a worth playing.
#35 Posted by Cyberdot (3872 posts) -

I'm not sure about this game, I've heard that it has QTEs which is a bad thing. High budget games these days tend to be dumbed down, so I think I should play it safe and buy the game when it's below £10.

#36 Posted by lamprey263 (24964 posts) -
it's been a great series for years, it needed a revitalization, I think people are happy maybe to see it continue to be relevant
#37 Posted by Goyoshi12 (9687 posts) -

They have an opinion outside of your own.....

#38 Posted by Pffrbt (6594 posts) -

I think what the OP is trying to say is he misses when Lara Croft looked like a bar whore. 

kickingcarpet

I'm not attracted to women and she looked like ass before anyway. This is the first Tomb Raider game I've played all the way through, every other time was either a store display or a demo.

#39 Posted by Pffrbt (6594 posts) -

Is it really that hard for you to believe that other people liked it just a little bit more than you did to think it's a great game?IndianaPwns39


No, I understand why people like the game and think it's great, but I keep seeing people acting like it's some innovative super impressive experience. The game just doesn't do anything new or interesting, it literally feels like it's cobbled together out of other popular games without bringing anything new to the table. And it doesn't even do any of the elements better than the games it borrowed them from.

People can love the game as much as they want, I just don't see why a game that's so clearly riding the dick of other popular franchises is so deserving of this much praise.

#40 Posted by sukraj (23648 posts) -

Tomb Raider is awesome. The graphics, gameplay, gun play, characters, story, level design.. everything about the game was great.Rattlesnake_8

yes the game is real sweet isn't it imo.

#41 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]Is it really that hard for you to believe that other people liked it just a little bit more than you did to think it's a great game?Pffrbt



No, I understand why people like the game and think it's great, but I keep seeing people acting like it's some innovative super impressive experience. The game just doesn't do anything new or interesting, it literally feels like it's cobbled together out of other popular games without bringing anything new to the table. And it doesn't even do any of the elements better than the games it borrowed them from.

People can love the game as much as they want, I just don't see why a game that's so clearly riding the dick of other popular franchises is so deserving of this much praise.

Well, I personally don't think a game needs to revolutionize or innovate in order to be exceptional. Tomb Raider excels in virtually every area (well, multiplayer, but I like to pretend that doesn't exist) and it deserves the praise for that, imo. I really loved every minute I spent with the game. Not my GOTY and it certainly isn't anything revolutionary, but exceptional nonetheless.

#42 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

The same reason people like Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, and Uncharted. It's designed for the lowest common denominator.famicommander

I'm curious as to what criteria or rubric you employed when deciding that the Assassin Creed games and the Uncharted franchise caters to the lowest denominator and furthermore I'd love to know, specifically, what you believe this lowest common denominator actually is.

It's great that these forums have received an influx of hardcore elitists who thumb their collective noses at everything mainstream but none of you seem to be able to articulate your angst and derision beyond vapid quips and tired maxims.

Surely you can do better than such unsubstantiated drivel.

#43 Posted by famicommander (8524 posts) -

[QUOTE="famicommander"]The same reason people like Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, and Uncharted. It's designed for the lowest common denominator.Grammaton-Cleric

I'm curious as to what criteria or rubric you employed when deciding that the Assassin Creed games and the Uncharted franchise caters to the lowest denominator and furthermore I'd love to know, specifically, what you believe this lowest common denominator actually is.

It's great that these forums have received an influx of hardcore elitists who thumb their collective noses at everything mainstream but none of you seem to be able to articulate your angst and derision beyond vapid quips and tired maxims.

Surely you can do better than such unsubstantiated drivel.

They appeal to the lowest common denominator by taking control away from the player at every opportunity (both Uncharted and AC feature autoplatforming) and emphasize presentation and fancy animation over interactivity. The games are so formulaic that they don't require any real thought from the player. In Uncharted you're rushed from one chest high wall to another where you take out 30 bullet sponges, then do a set piece, then some autoplatforming. then repeat. And the combat in Assassin's Creed is so ridiculously shallow that it shouldn't even be called an action game. Aside from the fact that the game is constantly slowing down the action and wrestling control away from the player to show off their cool animations, it rarely matters which attack buttons you press or what order you press them in. You can counter out of almost any bad situation and enemies have such braindead AI that they encircle the player and then attack one at a time like a bad 1970s kung fu flick. You'd almost get the same experience watching a Youtube playthrough as you would playing the Uncharted and Assassin's Creed titles yourself. They're video games that wish they were movies and they regard the player as an inconvenience to whatever thrilling "cinematic experience" they've cooked up this time. Specifically, the lowest common denominator is appealing the broadest possible audience in such a way that anything which requires advanced thought, pattern recognition skills, reflexes, timing, manual dexterity, coordination, or critical thinking is immediately squashed in favor of some guided fetch quest or on-rails segment. Like the Summer Blockbuster in films on the reality show in television. Anything that requires basic brain functionality to enjoy is taboo.
#44 Posted by Lulekani (2151 posts) -
[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"]The same reason people like Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, and Uncharted. It's designed for the lowest common denominator.famicommander

I'm curious as to what criteria or rubric you employed when deciding that the Assassin Creed games and the Uncharted franchise caters to the lowest denominator and furthermore I'd love to know, specifically, what you believe this lowest common denominator actually is.

It's great that these forums have received an influx of hardcore elitists who thumb their collective noses at everything mainstream but none of you seem to be able to articulate your angst and derision beyond vapid quips and tired maxims.

Surely you can do better than such unsubstantiated drivel.

They appeal to the lowest common denominator by taking control away from the player at every opportunity (both Uncharted and AC feature autoplatforming) and emphasize presentation and fancy animation over interactivity. The games are so formulaic that they don't require any real thought from the player. In Uncharted you're rushed from one chest high wall to another where you take out 30 bullet sponges, then do a set piece, then some autoplatforming. then repeat. And the combat in Assassin's Creed is so ridiculously shallow that it shouldn't even be called an action game. Aside from the fact that the game is constantly slowing down the action and wrestling control away from the player to show off their cool animations, it rarely matters which attack buttons you press or what order you press them in. You can counter out of almost any bad situation and enemies have such braindead AI that they encircle the player and then attack one at a time like a bad 1970s kung fu flick. You'd almost get the same experience watching a Youtube playthrough as you would playing the Uncharted and Assassin's Creed titles yourself. They're video games that wish they were movies and they regard the player as an inconvenience to whatever thrilling "cinematic experience" they've cooked up this time. Specifically, the lowest common denominator is appealing the broadest possible audience in such a way that anything which requires advanced thought, pattern recognition skills, reflexes, timing, manual dexterity, coordination, or critical thinking is immediately squashed in favor of some guided fetch quest or on-rails segment. Like the Summer Blockbuster in films on the reality show in television. Anything that requires basic brain functionality to enjoy is taboo.

Beneath the trash lies some small truth that I agree with.
#45 Posted by Pffrbt (6594 posts) -

Well, I personally don't think a game needs to revolutionize or innovate in order to be exceptional.

IndianaPwns39

It needs to actually be exceptional though. I'm just not seeing what Tomb Raider does that's so exceptionally better than all of the games it's aping. It's another one to add to the pile.

#46 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

 They appeal to the lowest common denominator by taking control away from the player at every opportunity (both Uncharted and AC feature autoplatforming) and emphasize presentation and fancy animation over interactivity. The games are so formulaic that they don't require any real thought from the player. In Uncharted you're rushed from one chest high wall to another where you take out 30 bullet sponges, then do a set piece, then some autoplatforming. then repeat. And the combat in Assassin's Creed is so ridiculously shallow that it shouldn't even be called an action game. Aside from the fact that the game is constantly slowing down the action and wrestling control away from the player to show off their cool animations, it rarely matters which attack buttons you press or what order you press them in. You can counter out of almost any bad situation and enemies have such braindead AI that they encircle the player and then attack one at a time like a bad 1970s kung fu flick. You'd almost get the same experience watching a Youtube playthrough as you would playing the Uncharted and Assassin's Creed titles yourself. They're video games that wish they were movies and they regard the player as an inconvenience to whatever thrilling "cinematic experience" they've cooked up this time. Specifically, the lowest common denominator is appealing the broadest possible audience in such a way that anything which requires advanced thought, pattern recognition skills, reflexes, timing, manual dexterity, coordination, or critical thinking is immediately squashed in favor of some guided fetch quest or on-rails segment. Like the Summer Blockbuster in films on the reality show in television. Anything that requires basic brain functionality to enjoy is taboo.famicommander

Well, I'll certainly give you credit for articulating your position even though I must flatly disagree with just about everything you've written.

Firstly, the term formulaic doesn't really apply given that Assassin's Creed has been one of the more divergent franchises of this era. It's certainly not a shooter and it has employed various historical settings and unique scenarios, most of them new to the gaming construct as a whole. I'd submit that any game that has you running across the rooftops of Jerusalem or battling the Borgia family for territorial control of Italy is a far more ambitious design than Military Shooter # 12673.

The traversal mechanic in AC isn't nearly as automated as you would assert; as a point of fact, the locomotion system in that game was radically innovative and while streamlined, it offers the player a copious amount of flexibility in both traversal and combat. I also take issue with the notion that there is no thinking or strategy in the AC games as the combat is quite elastic, facilitating all manner of player agency, assuming you take the time to utilize the full breadth of the mechanics. The combat has always been on the easy side, especially once your character is fully upgraded, but to be entirely fair the eras of combat seen in these games are accurately reflected in the mechanics, where most battles ended with a single blow. Also, I would be remiss not to mention the fact that the combat in ACIII is far more challenging than previous games because of the widespread proliferation of guns, which force the player to be even more strategic as projectiles are fired from all directions.

The AC games are also rife with choice and freedom so again, accusing them of being mind-numbing automatons doesn't mesh with the reality of what these games deliver to the player. For all your talk of cinematic flourishes, I actually play these games extensively and pay very little attention to the plot, which is entirely incidental and subordinate to the gameplay. That isn't to assert there isn't some room for improvement but given how much variety these games offer, I think your criticisms are a bit disingenuous.

As to Uncharted, while the traversal in that game is most certainly automated and streamlined the player is nonetheless given a broad set of tools to utilize in each and every combat situation. Uncharted is a deft and effective blend of melee, weapon combat and even enjoys a smattering of stealth so while your banal description of the combat might be true as it relates specifically to your own experience, I and many others choose to exploit the combat engine to its fullest and thus enjoy a much more dynamic experience where once again the construct of the game and its mechanics are malleable and elastic, allowing the player to implement all manner of strategy and technique.

Both of these games require many of the traits you claim to look for in this medium and I would submit that your experiences with these franchises is more an issue of your own protracted misuse of their respective constructs rather than inherent design deficiencies within the software. Uncharted for example can be played at a high difficulty which subsequently requires tremendous dexterity along with an understanding of enemy AI and patterns. And while I will concede that the AC franchise has never been the most challenging, it does afford the player a bevy of options and an inherent flexibility absent in many contemporary offerings.

That said, I am not entirely unsympathetic to your concerns regarding the prevalence of cinematic presentation over gameplay yet I find your examples in this specific instance woefully inaccurate. Even COD, which is a franchise that holds little interest for me, requires a great deal of skill to play at higher competitive levels.

Personally, I'd wager IOS and social media type games are a far more prevalent form of gaming that caters to the ultra-casual, lowest common denominator. I'd also point out that Nintendos strategy with consoles during the last two generations has placed an emphasis on ultra-casual gaming aimed at the masses. The true metric for evaluating these games however are identifying those titles which you can logically assert supplant these franchises by offering similar experiences but with superior mechanics. Truthfully, there are few games in either genre that offer the breadth and scope of either series, thus the accusations that these games are generic, formulaic experiences becomes difficult to sustain.

Ultimately, I agree with much of your ideology but I think you are attacking the wrong games.

#47 Posted by The_Last_Ride (73949 posts) -
Tomb Raider is awesome. The graphics, gameplay, gun play, characters, story, level design.. everything about the game was great.Rattlesnake_8
i have to agree
#48 Posted by HipHopBeats (2699 posts) -

I'm not sure about this game, I've heard that it has QTEs which is a bad thing. High budget games these days tend to be dumbed down, so I think I should play it safe and buy the game when it's below £10.

Cyberdot

I agree. QTE's is definitely something will deter me from immediate purchase. I may check this out once it hits the bargain bin. I watched parts of a few walkthroughs and saw nothing phenominal gameplay wise. Definitely nothing that tops Uncharted 2.

#49 Posted by JustPlainLucas (74744 posts) -

I agree. QTE's is definitely something will deter me from immediate purchase. I may check this out once it hits the bargain bin. I watched parts of a few walkthroughs and saw nothing phenominal gameplay wise. Definitely nothing that tops Uncharted 2.

HipHopBeats

They are QTEs, and then there's Dragon's Lair. QTEs mostly pop up during cutscenes, and it's just a way to get the player engaged in what they're watching. Do you know I fell asleep somewhere in the middle of one of Xenosaga's 45 minute long cutscenes? Maybe a couple QTEs every so often would have kept me awake (although I do love that game). I think QTEs are getting too much of a bad rap, because they really only represent about .01 percent of the actual gameplay.

#50 Posted by Chemistian (635 posts) -
[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I'm curious as to what criteria or rubric you employed when deciding that the Assassin Creed games and the Uncharted franchise caters to the lowest denominator and furthermore I'd love to know, specifically, what you believe this lowest common denominator actually is.

It's great that these forums have received an influx of hardcore elitists who thumb their collective noses at everything mainstream but none of you seem to be able to articulate your angst and derision beyond vapid quips and tired maxims.

Surely you can do better than such unsubstantiated drivel.

Lulekani
They appeal to the lowest common denominator by taking control away from the player at every opportunity (both Uncharted and AC feature autoplatforming) and emphasize presentation and fancy animation over interactivity. The games are so formulaic that they don't require any real thought from the player. In Uncharted you're rushed from one chest high wall to another where you take out 30 bullet sponges, then do a set piece, then some autoplatforming. then repeat. And the combat in Assassin's Creed is so ridiculously shallow that it shouldn't even be called an action game. Aside from the fact that the game is constantly slowing down the action and wrestling control away from the player to show off their cool animations, it rarely matters which attack buttons you press or what order you press them in. You can counter out of almost any bad situation and enemies have such braindead AI that they encircle the player and then attack one at a time like a bad 1970s kung fu flick. You'd almost get the same experience watching a Youtube playthrough as you would playing the Uncharted and Assassin's Creed titles yourself. They're video games that wish they were movies and they regard the player as an inconvenience to whatever thrilling "cinematic experience" they've cooked up this time. Specifically, the lowest common denominator is appealing the broadest possible audience in such a way that anything which requires advanced thought, pattern recognition skills, reflexes, timing, manual dexterity, coordination, or critical thinking is immediately squashed in favor of some guided fetch quest or on-rails segment. Like the Summer Blockbuster in films on the reality show in television. Anything that requires basic brain functionality to enjoy is taboo.

Beneath the trash lies some small truth that I agree with.

The use of the term "common denominator" is fair, however submitting the word "lowest" rather than "most" fundamentally alters your criticism by basing it upon individual opinion instead of mass appeal. Were it not for the condescension written in the original statement, this could carry a great degree of value. That would be the small truth that I agree with. Personally, I rather enjoyed Tomb Raider.