Maybe I'm wrong, but if it's where I'm thinking of then there's a giant tree blocking the entrance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Printable View
Maybe I'm wrong, but if it's where I'm thinking of then there's a giant tree blocking the entrance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I am about 70% in and really loving the game so far. Traversal feels really good, and the fighting has stayed exciting for me up to this point. I like the "dodge and then bury an axe in a motherfuckers skull" move.
Downloading now.
Not off to a hot start. Crashed when I hit the Survival Instinct button for the first time. Console 1, Peecee 0
I've heard the pc version is troublesome.
I haven't had any problem so far, but supposedly the 6XX cards do have crash issues.
Quote:
We are aware of major performance and stability issues with GeForce GPUs running Tomb Raider with maximum settings. Unfortunately, NVIDIA didn’t receive final code until this past weekend which substantially decreased stability, image quality and performance over a build we were previously provided. We are working closely with Crystal Dynamics to address and resolve all game issues as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we would like to apologize to GeForce users that are not able to have a great experience playing Tomb Raider, as they have come to expect with all of their favorite PC games.
because the game runs so smooth. My Motion Sickness kicked in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Console= 1
PC= BARF.
At least I completed the Lost Adventurer tomb, before it kicked in. Guess I'll have to play in 30 minute intervals.
PC GAMINGQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yeah, you might have to wait like a week to have by far the best version.
At least the driver update or patch won't have to clear Microsoft's approval process and pay a fee.
Played this a lot. Game is great so far.
Finished it at 79%. I enjoyed this game, but I'm glad I just rented because it's pretty short.
God I hate that logic.
It's why korly will always be a bridesmaid and never a bride.
I wouldn't say pretty short, I casually played it a few hours from like Thurs to Tues? That's a sweet spot for an adventure game. I shouldn't let him borrow Revengeance then, since that's only 4 hours.
You can beat Tekken in 10 minutes though.
Attachment 69184
That's how they get you.
Games that last 5-10 hours are the best.
The owner of this website (www.laprogressive.com) does not allow hotlinking to that resource (/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/nat-king-cole-smoking.gif). (Ref. 1011)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chux
Yeah, that is how they get you.
Bitch please.
Can you go back ad get all the collectables?
Once you complete it, they give you the option.
This game rules so far.
Yup. I feel like I played a ton of this and I'm still not done. It's actually a lot longer than I thought it would be. Game is fucking great IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...5&d=1362864598Quote:
Originally Posted by Chux
I love that image so much.
Haaaaaw
Real men don't need that option. On mine it popped and said roughly, "You completed 100%. Now you can go back and do anything you missed." That shouldn't take long!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chux
The trick is that you double back to most of the complicated places during the story, so you typically get two chances to get everything, unless it's an easy level.
You can fast travel anywhere though. So it seems you can go back any time.
The thing is, as much as I liked the campaign, I don't see this having much replayability (is that a word?). There were a ton of really cool OMG moments (lots of shit crumbles under Lara. Like, tons of it) that won't be nearly as impactful the second time around.
I hope that didn't make it sound like I didn't enjoy the game. I REALLY liked it, and I hope it doesn't take another 4 years to get us a sequel.
10 minutes x 59 playable characters = almost 10 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Also, don't be silly.
This is exactly how I felt about Uncharted 1/2. It's a great game, but the fun is not knowing what kind of crap you're about to get into.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korly
You weren't misunderstood. It just frustrates me that you don't think a game that you want to get a sequel is worth supporting. If everyone had the same attitude, single player games wouldn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korly
Good point.
On the other hand, there are quite a few single player games that build in scoring systems, or fighting systems, or branching paths that make you want to play the game over and over either to see a different path, or improve your score, or put together the ultimate combo and Tomb Raider has none of that. I would support the game at $40, but not $60.
This also explains why I've played Revengenace 5ish times through and was done with TR as soon as I finished.
Coming from the two who "finished" the game with less than 80% and probably didn't play on hard.
Since he specifically stated a lack of replay value, that's not entirely true. I often see games that aren't worth paying for but I would still be willing to support a sequel that fixes the problems I dealt with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Does hard actually do anything in TR or is it the lazy usual of just enemies have more health and deal more damage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I said I finished the story. I was tired of playing it by the time I was done, so I sure as hell wasn't going for 100%. Revengeance on the other hand I can't get enough of, so I'm actively searching out the left arms and going for achievements I normally wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I completed all of the optional tombs. Is there any reason to collect all of the GPS things, or is it just for an achievement and some completion percentage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
You collect them, because, like a mountain, they are there. I do give you credit for the tombs though. I liked the variety of puzzles in those.
The problem with the "replay value" gripe is that the game either needs to be four hours long, like MGR, or let you see everything in one play through. The biggest flaw of games like Uncharted and Gears is what I am sure the developers thought was "replay value": locked difficulties. Who the hell has time to play through right-length games multiple times anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
Korly's statement about supporting it for $40 but not $60 is fair (especially since I paid $45), so let's see if he puts his money where his mouth is.
I keep money in my mouth all the time.
And I'm not saying that I will buy it when it hits $40. I AM saying that I would have bought it at launch for $40. Now that I have finished the game (and spent like 8 bucks renting it from Redbox for 4 days) I don't want to buy it. Now, if it's re-released for PS4 with new content and a $40 price point then I'd buy it. This version I will buy at $20 when there is a coupon at Best Buy or a Gold Box at Amazon.
And if there is meaningful DLC (new, challenging tombs or extended story bits) then I will buy that DLC and rent the game from Redbox again to play it.
You could have bought it at launch for 40 dollars. I did. $37.50 I think.
Game is great so far. I found only my second tomb though and I think I am halfway through the story. The last tomb was just me burning some cocoons on a weight. Kind of a crappy tomb.
You're making the wrong assumption about GOW; the replay value comes in the form of multiplayer that people actually want to play. MGS:R's replay value is the same as Vanquish's despite the difference in campaign length, as both of them (along with games like the recent Batman entries) feature score and timed-based challenge modes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
As for difficulties, the reason I asked you about whether TR's was the lazy method is because that method is worthless. Unless you're terrible at the game and using up health potions or whatever all the time and just soaking up boss attacks on normal, there's often no functional difference between normal and hard on a game that just increases enemy lifebars and damage dealt. You're facing the same bad guys with the same tactics with the same attacks, only now it takes twice as long.
In MGS:R there's a big difference between hard and revengeance. You're fighting different enemy configurations with different enemies who are using much more aggressive tactics, similar to how Ninja Gaiden did it. In hard they fight the same way they do in Assassin's Creed or Batman, where everyone circles around the player and takes turns doing an attack. In revengeance everyone dogpiles on the player and attacks at the same time, meaning that if you aren't doing perfect parries you can get stuck in block stun totally unable to retaliate while three soldiers and a Gekko all constantly swing at you without ever pausing.
TLDR: Playing on hard instead of normal most likely means nothing.
I agree with you. Tomb Raider doesn't seem like it has a replay value. But the game is longer (and just as high quality IMO) as playing MGR:R twice. Longer for the sake of long is stupid. "Normal" games (action/adventure, FPS) should be measured on a matrix consisting of length, average quality and lowest prolonged-stretch quality IMO.
That's all well and good. This industry can eat a dick if, thanks to people like Korly, we stop getting great single player games that aren't based on replaying for score or at all for that matter. Fucking Chux has a Ninja Gaiden avatar and is condoning that bullshit even.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
NG has a score though.
The only comparable thing you could do with TR is a speed run, maybe.
Yeah, but no one plays for that. In fact, with the reappearing enemies, isn't it totally worthless?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Well, it'd be easy to throw some arbitrary metrics in there. Damage taken in this level, time taken. Look to the DN3D and DOOM XBLA ports (combo of kills/items/secretes/time). Once you add combos in there it becomes some boss milk method of attract everyone in an area and then go apeshit--so avoid that if the game isn't built for it. I think every game should have something like that. It doesn't take a long time to implement. It does require balancing for it to be at all worthwhile, though.
I don't remember how the scoring worked in NG. But yes, that's the issue with these kind of things, you need to do certain things to prevent lameness. One way would be to eliminate points on all backtracking/resetting encounters, etc
I think it was Metal Slug that started scores at like 1000 points but continuing added 1 point, so you basically had a built-in metric that showed how many times that person used a continue without wiping their score. I thought that was a neat idea, even though I do prefer wiping the score at continues.
Am I going to have to buy this to send the message that people still want good single player games?
The message I wish I could send is that not all games are worth the same amount of money.
Games these days for the most part are either $15 or $60. Why isn't there a $40 tier? Tomb Raider could have launched at $40 and I would have bought it. They could have saved substantial development budget by not making a multiplayer mode. I thought multi was just fine, but if I'm playing a competitive multiplayer game for any length of time, it's just not going to be Tomb Raider or Uncharted or Bioshock 2 or Mass Effect 3.
That's a very fair point. I literally never touched the multi in TR, BioShock 2, or ME3. I probably wouldn't have in Uncharted 2 either, except that the Platinum was very easily attainable with minimal multiplayer participation. I also don't pay $60 for anything, so I'm pretty much already in the sweet spot you're describing.
There is a 40 dollar tier because that's what I paid for it. On consoles, you have far more problems pricing at 40, not the least of which is that there's a huge chunk of royalty $ just for being able to be on the system.
I feel like once Korly gets his PC up, we'll be seeing him find his $40 spot more often.
Lara Croft is a $60 whore, not a $40 whore!
Tomb Raider Thoughts/Mini-Review
- I also rented the game from Redbox, although it was a 1-day rental period starting Friday and ending Saturday. Beat the game at 100% on Normal difficulty, with an estimated play time of about 18 hours.
- Quick background: the original Tomb Raider somehow caught my eye leading up to its late 1996 release, got a copy as a gift that Christmas, played through it and really enjoyed it a great deal. The environments, the platforming, the tense action, the puzzles, all sort of blew my mind at the time. As my posts in this and other threads attest, initially I was very excited for this new game, but that interest diminished in the wake of the reveals of the tacked-on multiplayer and optional, simple tombs.
- Tomb Raider is outstanding. Great, great game. Having a single-player narrative grab you and not let go, with such an incredibly high level of production and quality throughout, in that way it really reminds me of Portal 2 (which came out around this time two years ago). Of course the story/script and puzzles are much better in Portal 2, while the platforming and combat are better in Tomb Raider, but it reached that same level of excellence imo. Such that, to the earlier posts by Korly and Chux, I do very much look forward to re-playing this as I have - and will again - the aforementioned Portal 2.
- The new Tomb Raider doesn't abandon the old Tomb Raider. Obviously it's not the same form as it was before, but the spirit is still there. The environments are more modern most of the time and not quite as punishing, but the platforming remains the central element. There is still that essence of discovery and problem-solving, though neither reach the high of the original game. When you open the treasure chest in an optional tomb, it triggers an animation that is intentionally classic Lara Croft. And while this is a new origin story, there's a moment near the end of the game that is a huge nod to the old (and maybe new again) character.
- THE VERTICALITY. The verticality in this game is tremendous imo, they nailed it, they build amazing environments around it, and that's a immense part of keeping that spirit alive. The island is fantastic.
- The platforming feels great, as does the combat. The bow is the first weapon you get and essentially the signature weapon throughout the game, it's great to use and was my preferred weapon of choice for the vast majority of the game. (As someone longing for some great bow-and-arrow gameplay in games, this has been fantastic!) The game's probably easier if you use the assault rifle and/or shotgun more, although I didn't find Normal difficulty too challenging at all.
- The story isn't the most amazing thing, and you're likely to foresee a few events happening in advance, but that said it's very good and very well executed. I've noticed criticism about how quickly and abruptly Lara turns into the killer she is later in the game, and while that's certainly true in terms of the proficiency of her actions (especially when there's so many enemies at times later in the game), I didn't find much of a problem with it story-wise and character-wise. All things told, they nailed this new origin story.
- Because of the setting and the story developments of the island, there's naturally comparisons to Lost, but Tomb Raider blows it out of the water.
- Obviously the PC version is the best, but I was pleasantly surprised of how well the Xbox 360 version looks and runs. It's stunning and I can't recall a single moment where the game suffered any kind of hitch in performance during my playing time. Very impressed.
- Bit surprised that there's a very small Metroid-like element in needing future items/weapons for certain portions of the environment, but it's to a much lesser extent than the Batman: Arkham games for example, and the game does a really good job of not making you backtrack.
- I definitely recommend finding and going through all of the optional tombs. There's not that many of them and they are quite simple in terms of complexity, but I found they still added quite a bit to the experience and atmosphere of the game. Plus I'm sure you get at least one weapon upgrade part from one of the tomb treasure chests. The Hall of Ascension Tomb in particular is stunning.
- I also recommend finding the documents, as they add a huge amount of backstory for the island and various inhabitants of the island. They're quite significant, especially as you're playing along.
- If you have the time and the initiative, find all the GPS caches as doing so unlocks a secret document that I found to be pretty awesome. Also, I dug the environment-specific challenges quite a bit.
- Didn't touch the multiplayer, don't care about it. But it does have achievements tied to it, for those interested.
- Despite having beaten it as detailed above, I'll very likely purchase Tomb Raider soon as it's such an outstanding game and deserving of purchase and support. Looking forward to replaying it on Hard difficulty.
Hints
- Click in the left stick to switch your aim positioning between left and right. I didn't discover this until well into the game.
- You might want to unlock the XP boosting skills early on the game. I didn't, though I did with the salvage boosting skills. Still unlocked every skill and weapon by the end of the game.
Side note
This was actually my first rental with Redbox, and am quite pleased with it. Getting the chance to play a brand new game for $2 is good stuff, and I'll definitely be doing more of it. Their site says they'll have Bioshock Infinite upon its week of release, as well as DmC the week after, will rent both.
Mass Effect 3 doesn't have competitive multiplayer, so that goes without saying. :smileyface:Quote:
Originally Posted by Korly
From what I've heard the TR multi is pretty undercooked anyway.
If you like watching women get injured, boy do I have a game for you...
I like this game aside from a little framerate issues
I don't know if I can handle having an erection for the 20+ hours it takes to beat the game.
Mzo, this is a prequel, but Lara is still 21.
She's all mud-covered, bleeding, and vulnerable.
It really is pretty hot.
I wish the game kept track of how long you've been playing, because according to Raptr, I've played it 21 hours over the past 48 hours FOR A RENTAL. Granted, at least a few hours of that was spent in menus while running errands, but still - that's a lot of gaming time for such a short timeframe. Really loved the game as a whole. They could've cut a few characters and the narrative would've been better for it. Everyone who dies but Roth feels like a token characters, and the other characters outside of Sam feel like that anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
Multi-player is certainly...a thing you can play to kill time and as it turns out, farm XP in a boring fashion to make the game easier. I'm glad they didn't lock it behind an online pass since playing it allowed me to fully review the game, but it doesn't really add much to the experience. It feels far behind Uncharted 3 with its changing environments, and while there's technically variety, everything outside of free for all is just either TDM or a slightly altered version of it.
Played through this, and in general, my thoughts match most others here. I had a giant thing written here but I cut out a bunch of it to try to make it readable.
Overall, the one feeling that nagged at me while I was playing is that the game felt unfinished. There is this cast of characters that they probably wanted to be important, but their stories end up just getting barfed out quickly in journals. I remember talk about hunting to stay alive- its nothing but quick achievements and a tiny (pointless) XP grind. There are 'food' boxes throughout the game that give you 20 xp each (my guess is you were supposed to not regen health, and food was meant to heal you). I am pretty sure developers had some bigger plans for these things that just didn't happen. Plus there are some relatively complex puzzles to burn down those hanging boxes. And there is nothing there can couldn't be gotten in a box lying on the ground? There are probably a bunch of other examples, but if you're looking, I think you can see a lot of things that were started that got chopped.
In general, I feel like the devs of this game, probably across many different teams, had tons of ideas of what they wanted in this game, but in the end, they ONLY had 10 years of development time so they cut out EVERYTHING extra and made the base game incredibly nice to look at. I can just imagine level designers saying 'yeah, they told just to add this into the level for feature XYZ, but it got cut. So now its a box with 15 salvage it.'
I had fun with the game. It doesn't seem like they used their time and resources well though.
edit: I was exaggerating with the 10 year statement, I actually had no idea how long it was being made. I was curious so I just looked it up, and it was 5 years.
Also I cut out one point I really wanted to make, which is the optional tombs are shockingly easy, and they give you about 5 different ways to find them, so they're almost impossible to miss.
An actual game sitting on the shelf can't match what the designers (or gamers) have in their head. That's just reality.
I get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darmonde
I'm not talking in general, of course I know this happens. I'm saying in this game its very obvious, and its to the point that they couldn't cleanly hide the half done ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I don't get it. =(Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
I hear you. I'm just thinking about it another way. Like, for example, before New Vegas came out, the developers talked up hardcore mode, how you needed food and water to survive, how your healing was slow, etc. And of course all the neckbeards got really excited.
The game came out and hardcore mode kind of sucked! It's just a stupid meter that ticks down until you replenish it. It really doesn't make the game any better, in fact if anything it takes away from the fun of exploring and poking around and getting into cool situations (FO3/NV's strength).
I haven't played Tomb Raider. This was Core's first big chance to do something new with the franchise so maybe they tried everything and some stuff didn't work out well. I'd love to see what they emphasize in the sequel.
Your comments were about the developers having a bigger game planned that they cut out a bunch of stuff from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darmonde
I wish I were that witty. I thought that might be what you meant, but then I thought you were just making fun of my bad wording.
I think part of it with things like the food is that we still haven't found a "fun" way to regain health in a realistic way. Magical health pickups are silly, having to eat food can just be slow and cumbersome, and then trying to implement something somewhat realistic that then doesn't break the illusion can be even tougher. Once you're taking medicine and wrapping bandages to heal your character there's no way that person could immediately spring back into action, so you start walking the tightrope of whether something is fake enough that it's obviously just a representation and not meant to be thought about vs. being a realistic enough interpretation that other things stop making sense.
MGS3 had a pretty decent setup, but they also still managed to keep everything firmly rooted in video game land thanks to stuff like how animals magically transform into prepackaged rations when they die. I would suppose it's possible that they ran into similar issues here, where they wanted to develop hunting and food and all that but it turned into a clusterfuck of balance and being interesting to play so they just said fuck it.
Digital Foundry made the face-off comparisons, it's basically just confirming PC > PS3 > 360 although they say that the Xbox version runs a tad smoother than the PS3 version.
I shall be PS3'ing it then.
I know lists and comparisons are bad but goddamnQuote:
Will has reported this post:
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/thr...post1064801633
This is part of this thread:
Tomb Raider (Crystal Dynamics' 4th)
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/threads/55797
This is the reason that the user gave:
Digital Foundry made the http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tomb-raider-face-off]face-off comparisons[/URL], it's basically PC > PS2 > 360 although they say that the Xbox version runs a tad smoother.
I'll probably get it on PS3 when it hits a lower price.
This message has been sent to all moderators of this forum, or all administrators if there are no moderators.
Please respond to this post as applicable.
Yeah my bad dawgs, hit that by accident you can disregard that reported post.
So, I rented this today. It doesn't feel very Tomb Raidery to me, but that's fine since I like it better. I'm playing the 360 version, and the QTEs can go straight to hell since I don't remember which button is what on the 360 pad without looking. I'm going to have to make myself stop playing since I plan on buying it now.
Also, there is a nice sense of immersion playing a cold and wounded Lara while I am sick and shivering. Welcome to the next level!
That feel comes a few hours in, depending on how you play. There's one area in particular that I thought had it in spades.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
NoobQuote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
I use a joystick with most of my 360 games!
Relevant - I tried and beat this thing in 2 days. Liked it a lot more than I thought I would. Way better than Uncharted.
Also relevant, I'm entering a contest on deviantart for the game. Ba-dum-dum:
Why isn't she beaten, dirty and bloody?
I can't jack off to that.
This is $42 today on amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/goldbox/ref=cs_top_nav_gb27
In on the PC version, nice!
Grabbed the 360 version, can't wait to give this a shot!
I loved it. I'm curious to see what you think.
Beat it last night.
Really, really, good.
Came in the mail today. Did every copy come with the little hardcover art book? I think that's a wonderful addition, wish more games would do that. Very excited to dig in tonight!
Did you order a special edition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineapple
Not as far as I know, I just got it from Amazon during its deal of the day thing I posted. Nothing on the box says LE or whatever, which is why I was wondering. It's a pleasant surprise, though!
Nice! How's the artwork?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineapple
The art is nice, mostly environments and stuff with some character sketches to round it out. Definitely a cool little addition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will
So far I love this game. It does a really good job of giving you control of most things and then taking control away at times to make sure the presentation is intact. Good example would be when you have to duck under a bar or branch when wading through the water with your torch. You control where you're wading, but when you get to that branch the game takes control for a breif moment while Lara ducks under the branch and switches hands with the torch to keep it from going out. Its little things like that that help sell the immersion in the game world. Sound design is excellent as well, playing with stereo headphones on is my preferance for this game because all the little sounds work very well and acurately tell you where things are coming from. I'm not even that far in because I've just been scouring each area and enjoying jumping around and shooting deer and bunnies in the face. Taking out dudes with the bow is badass, too. Hell I even like the scrambles with the wolves, something I had no idea about but it's good shit.
The bow is so awesome. I used it as my main weapon all the way through to the end. Shooting bunnies in the head with an arrow is always fun.
Yeah, the first thing I did was shoot critters in the face until the game told me to move along.
I got the bow and was all "WTF is this shit? When do I get a gun?" Then proceeded to hardly ever use the gun, as sniping with the bow was both more fun and efficient.
It also helps make the game seem different than Uncharted, and the sound of the arrows plunging into enemies rules.
Ran into a bug last night, ended up having to reload a checkpoint and it fixed the problem but it was jarring when it happened.
Yikes, that's pretty bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineapple