Why do people think Tomb Raider is so good?

Great game.

If it didn't have a shltty multiplayer mode and a bug that locks up at the loading screen, and had actual Tomb Raiding (even a little bit), I'd have given it a 10.

Great game.

If it didn't have a shltty multiplayer mode and a bug that locks up at the loading screen, and had actual Tomb Raiding (even a little bit), I'd have given it a 10.

Shame-usBlackley

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.
You know what's a good way to keep players engaged in what they're watching that isn't completely lazy, cheap bullsh*t? Good writing and directing. IT keeps the player engaged without catching them off guard with random f*cking button prompts that if they fail they have to start the cutscene over.
Maybe a couple QTEs every so often would have kept me awake JustPlainLucas

That's idiotic.

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]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.
You know what's a good way to keep players engaged in what they're watching that isn't completely lazy, cheap bullsh*t? Good writing and directing. IT keeps the player engaged without catching them off guard with random f*cking button prompts that if they fail they have to start the cutscene over.
Maybe a couple QTEs every so often would have kept me awake Pffrbt

That's idiotic.

Tomb Raider was the most fun I've had with a game this year (though I've just started playing Dishonored and that's pushing it close).

 TR definitely has it's flaws, there are too many QTE's, the gameplay doesn't really mesh with the narrative, there's way too much running away from explosions/fires/plane crashes, it was too easy overall, (but hard is the new normal these days so it's not exactly alone in that respect), too many action set pieces compared to the amount of tomb raiding, puzzle solving and exploration, but those complaints aside, it's just a really fun, slick game.

 I disagree that it doesn't do anything particularly well, I loved the art design, the island setting was well conceived and beautifully executed, I liked the way hub areas expanded as you learned new traversal mechanics and acquired new gear. The animation was excellent, lots of really nice little touches and attention to detail that helped bring the characters and world to life. The combat was well done, the cover system was by far the best I've used, there was good variety in how you could deal with enemies, the weapons were solid and the bow in particular was really well handled. The character reboot was also very well handled, they did a good job of humanising a formerly cartoonish bit of fluff.

I don't buy the 'people only like it because they are too dumb to play real games' crap. I play and enjoy a variety of games, my favourite games of recent years have been the Souls series and the Anno series, neither of which are particularly dumb or casual, but it's perfectly possible to enjoy involved strategy games, hardcore RPG's and well made, accessible action games. If a game is fun then I like it, I'm not interested in what other people think are the 'right' kind of games.

they're also completely irrelavent to what interactive entertainment is.
It doesn't matter. Cutscenes are a useful tool for developers to convey a story and can be used as an effective reward/downtime during a game. Throwing in random button prompts adds nothing to the experience.

Atleast QTE's are giving players controlLulekani

They aren't. Their arbitrary roadblocks in what can be otherwise enjoyable cutscenes.

[QUOTE="Lulekani"]they're also completely irrelavent to what interactive entertainment is.
It doesn't matter. Cutscenes are a useful tool for developers to convey a story and can be used as an effective reward/downtime during a game. Throwing in random button prompts adds nothing to the experience.

Atleast QTE's are giving players controlPffrbt

They aren't. Their arbitrary roadblocks in what can be otherwise enjoyable cutscenes.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

Great game.

If it didn't have a shltty multiplayer mode and a bug that locks up at the loading screen, and had actual Tomb Raiding (even a little bit), I'd have given it a 10.

JustPlainLucas

I would have much rather seen that money spent on hiring additional level designers and programmers to put tombs in the game. Or, even a New Game + mode, or a secret part of the island that couldn't be reached until you gained the ability to make your own rappel points. The money could have been spent in so many other ways that would have made a near perfect game even better.

I always look at multiplayer as money that could have been spent elsewhere, though. And while it's obvious, a ton of work went into the singleplayer portion of the game, it's not so well done that that money should have been spent on another throwaway multiplayer mode no one is going to care about in a month.

[QUOTE="Rattlesnake_8"]Tomb Raider is awesome. The graphics, gameplay, gun play, characters, story, level design.. everything about the game was great.The_Last_Ride

i also agree i absoultely love tomb raider.

Tomb Raider was the most fun I've had with a game this year (though I've just started playing Dishonored and that's pushing it close).

TR definitely has it's flaws, there are too many QTE's, the gameplay doesn't really mesh with the narrative, there's way too much running away from explosions/fires/plane crashes, it was too easy overall, (but hard is the new normal these days so it's not exactly alone in that respect), too many action set pieces compared to the amount of tomb raiding, puzzle solving and exploration, but those complaints aside, it's just a really fun, slick game.

I disagree that it doesn't do anything particularly well, I loved the art design, the island setting was well conceived and beautifully executed, I liked the way hub areas expanded as you learned new traversal mechanics and acquired new gear. The animation was excellent, lots of really nice little touches and attention to detail that helped bring the characters and world to life. The combat was well done, the cover system was by far the best I've used, there was good variety in how you could deal with enemies, the weapons were solid and the bow in particular was really well handled. The character reboot was also very well handled, they did a good job of humanising a formerly cartoonish bit of fluff.

I don't buy the 'people only like it because they are too dumb to play real games' crap. I play and enjoy a variety of games, my favourite games of recent years have been the Souls series and the Anno series, neither of which are particularly dumb or casual, but it's perfectly possible to enjoy involved strategy games, hardcore RPG's and well made, accessible action games. If a game is fun then I like it, I'm not interested in what other people think are the 'right' kind of games.

JamDev

Great post, nice to see somebody who doesn't have a sense of entitlement or any kind of elitist attitude. Just enjoy the games and shut up people :P

 

I would have much rather seen that money spent on hiring additional level designers and programmers to put tombs in the game. Or, even a New Game + mode, or a secret part of the island that couldn't be reached until you gained the ability to make your own rappel points. The money could have been spent in so many other ways that would have made a near perfect game even better.

I always look at multiplayer as money that could have been spent elsewhere, though. And while it's obvious, a ton of work went into the singleplayer portion of the game, it's not so well done that that money should have been spent on another throwaway multiplayer mode no one is going to care about in a month.

Shame-usBlackley

Because it is! At least to me. I loved it, as did all my friends who have it, except one. I enjoyed this one much more than the others. It's now in my top 5 games! I just really enjoyed it. The island was beautiful and fun to explore. I liked the story. The gameplay was great and enjoyable. The campfire and upgrade system was well done. The characters were pretty well done and likable. Lara was excellently done. She was much more dynamic. I enjoyed seeing her change, and seeing her strength, weakness, vulnerability, ect, rather than just a badass chick with guns. I really cared for her. Of course the game wasn't perfect, but for me it was damn close. But each to their own, I guess.

I'm just saying if your gona have a story in a game, make it an interactive one (its kind of the whole point).
No it isn't.There's really nothing wrong with having non-interactive cutscenes in a game, at all.

But these are games dude, Heavy Rain will always be more relavent to gaming than anything that doesn't even notice the player has left the room *cough* Final Fantasy cutscenes.
That doesn't make any sense.Having interactive cutscenes does not make something more or less relevant to games.

I should also add that Heavy Rain QTE's aren't road blocks, the game continues even if you get one of your 4 characters killed (same thing in Lost Planet 2).Lulekani

I don't really care because Heavy Rain is genuinely terrible in almost every way.

I disagree that it doesn't do anything particularly well, I loved the art design, the island setting was well conceived and beautifully executed
I can't remember anything being particularly beautiful or interesting.It's mostly just muddy and ugly.
The animation was excellent, lots of really nice little touches and attention to detail that helped bring the characters and world to life.
I thought the animation looked incredibly unnatural and awkward myself. Most characters outside of Lara talk like their faces have been paralyzed and no one moves like an actual person.
The combat was well done, the cover system was by far the best I've used, there was good variety in how you could deal with enemies, the weapons were solid and the bow in particular was really well handled.
It just seemed so run of the mill to me. It does nothing to stand out amongst others in the genre.
The character reboot was also very well handled, they did a good job of humanising a formerly cartoonish bit of fluff.
How if she barely even has a personality. Beating the sh*t out of someone isn't humanising them.

If a game is fun then I like it, I'm not interested in what other people think are the 'right' kind of games.

JamDev

I never said people shouldn't enjoy it or that it's the "wrong" kind of game. I just want to know why anyone thinks a game that's so clearly by the numbers that doesn't really do anything interesting or noteworthy is worth this much praise.

[QUOTE="Lulekani"]I'm just saying if your gona have a story in a game, make it an interactive one (its kind of the whole point).
No it isn't.There's really nothing wrong with having non-interactive cutscenes in a game, at all.

But these are games dude, Heavy Rain will always be more relavent to gaming than anything that doesn't even notice the player has left the room *cough* Final Fantasy cutscenes.
That doesn't make any sense.Having interactive cutscenes does not make something more or less relevant to games.

I should also add that Heavy Rain QTE's aren't road blocks, the game continues even if you get one of your 4 characters killed (same thing in Lost Planet 2).Pffrbt

I don't really care because Heavy Rain is genuinely terrible in almost every way.

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]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.
You know what's a good way to keep players engaged in what they're watching that isn't completely lazy, cheap bullsh*t? Good writing and directing. IT keeps the player engaged without catching them off guard with random f*cking button prompts that if they fail they have to start the cutscene over.
Maybe a couple QTEs every so often would have kept me awake Pffrbt

That's idiotic.

Here we go with that argument again. SE wasn't going to give Crystal Dynamics extra money for the single player. That portion of the game was already budgeted. The fact that the game is longer than most previous Tomb Raiders and of higher quality (tomb raiding aside) attests to the single player not suffering at the slightest due to the inclusion of multiplayer. It's a shame the multiplayer was so lackluster, but it was completely separate budget given to a completely separate team. Had the multiplayer never been developed, the single player wouldn't have seen a single cent extra as that money would have never been budgeted in the first place. You should blame SE's hazardous spending on the ridiculous cost of the single player and marketing before you do the multiplayer.

JustPlainLucas

None of that matters.You're saying that because I had two separate budgets to do my roof and my landscaping last year, that had I not opted to do the roof, I would have spent the same amount on the landscaping, which is utter nonsense. The money all comes from the same pool of finite resources. I had to make concessions on the landscaping knowing that I still had a roof to put on. Had I not, I would have put a fountain, more lighting, and a paver walkway to the back, among other things. Then there have been times when I budgeted for something without knowing I was going to be funding something else, and it has still had an effect on the project. For example, I contracted to have a new kitchen installed in my house, and halfway through it, I bought a new vehicle. I was already planning on upgrading some of the fixtures, appliances, and flooring from what had been planned in the original budget (as well as tearing out a wall to open the room up) but instead, I now had to cut things out of the budget. It would have been easy for someone to say, "Well, the car you bought had no effect on the remodel because you had already budgeted the remodel." Which would be true, but also totally inaccurate.

My point is that budgets don't exist in a goddamn vacuum, whether it's for a house project or a game. The pool of resources is. All projects draw from that same pool. Projects, planned and unplanned, are affected by other projects.

The game, as good as it is, still could have been a better game had the money spent on multiplayer been spent elsewhere. Even a copy/pasted Horde Mode would have been a vast improvement. 

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]

Here we go with that argument again. SE wasn't going to give Crystal Dynamics extra money for the single player. That portion of the game was already budgeted. The fact that the game is longer than most previous Tomb Raiders and of higher quality (tomb raiding aside) attests to the single player not suffering at the slightest due to the inclusion of multiplayer. It's a shame the multiplayer was so lackluster, but it was completely separate budget given to a completely separate team. Had the multiplayer never been developed, the single player wouldn't have seen a single cent extra as that money would have never been budgeted in the first place. You should blame SE's hazardous spending on the ridiculous cost of the single player and marketing before you do the multiplayer.

Shame-usBlackley

None of that matters.You're saying that because I had two separate budgets to do my roof and my landscaping last year, that had I not opted to do the roof, I would have spent the same amount on the landscaping, which is utter nonsense. The money all comes from the same pool of finite resources. I had to make concessions on the landscaping knowing that I still had a roof to put on. Had I not, I would have put a fountain, more lighting, and a paver walkway to the back, among other things. Then there have been times when I budgeted for something without knowing I was going to be funding something else, and it has still had an effect on the project. For example, I contracted to have a new kitchen installed in my house, and halfway through it, I bought a new vehicle. I was already planning on upgrading some of the fixtures, appliances, and flooring from what had been planned in the original budget (as well as tearing out a wall to open the room up) but instead, I now had to cut things out of the budget. It would have been easy for someone to say, "Well, the car you bought had no effect on the remodel because you had already budgeted the remodel." Which would be true, but also totally inaccurate.

My point is that budgets don't exist in a goddamn vacuum, whether it's for a house project or a game. The pool of resources is. All projects draw from that same pool. Projects, planned and unplanned, are affected by other projects.

The game, as good as it is, still could have been a better game had the money spent on multiplayer been spent elsewhere. Even a copy/pasted Horde Mode would have been a vast improvement. 

Tomb Raider was the most fun I've had with a game this year (though I've just started playing Dishonored and that's pushing it close).

 TR definitely has it's flaws, there are too many QTE's, the gameplay doesn't really mesh with the narrative, there's way too much running away from explosions/fires/plane crashes, it was too easy overall, (but hard is the new normal these days so it's not exactly alone in that respect), too many action set pieces compared to the amount of tomb raiding, puzzle solving and exploration, but those complaints aside, it's just a really fun, slick game.

 I disagree that it doesn't do anything particularly well, I loved the art design, the island setting was well conceived and beautifully executed, I liked the way hub areas expanded as you learned new traversal mechanics and acquired new gear. The animation was excellent, lots of really nice little touches and attention to detail that helped bring the characters and world to life. The combat was well done, the cover system was by far the best I've used, there was good variety in how you could deal with enemies, the weapons were solid and the bow in particular was really well handled. The character reboot was also very well handled, they did a good job of humanising a formerly cartoonish bit of fluff.

I don't buy the 'people only like it because they are too dumb to play real games' crap. I play and enjoy a variety of games, my favourite games of recent years have been the Souls series and the Anno series, neither of which are particularly dumb or casual, but it's perfectly possible to enjoy involved strategy games, hardcore RPG's and well made, accessible action games. If a game is fun then I like it, I'm not interested in what other people think are the 'right' kind of games.

JamDev