Tomb Raider and the Fall of Core Design
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
But I tried the 2013 reboot and it hit all the right notes with me. I rarely play games to full 100% completion, but I played Tomb Raider 2013 until I had found everything (all collectables, etc). It's really a great game.
But the rest of the game was fun, so I'm looking forward to the next instalment. Hopefully they'll throw in some actual Tombs.
Rise of the Tomb Raider will be a time-exclusive XBox game, and released to other platforms (months/years?) later.
GTA V (2013) is still not released on PC. Halo 1 and 2 had been released years later to PC by Microsoft and part 2 was Vista-only for marketing reasons. Age of Empires, Flight Simulator and many other Microsoft Games PC games series were destroyed/stopped years ago.
Why should one upgrade to Win10 for PC games? For their DirectX12? Don't turn Rise of the Tomb Raider in the next Halo 1/2 for PC! Everyone still remembers the Vista-only DirectX11 while all games were stuck with DirectX9c for many years and WinXP support.
Somehow Microsoft forgot why Win95 was so successful and won the operating system war - a huge part were PC games with Win95 launch games like Hoover, Pinball, SimCity 2000 for Win95, Doom 2 for Win95, Pitfall for Win95 (WinG and DirectPlay, DirectSound, DirectX2D APIs).
Look at Steam, look at GoodOldGames (GoG). SteamBox is already around the corner.
You probably liked the reboot because it is aims for the lowest common denominator( as most AAA games today do ). It is made to be really easy to play, since the obligation to keep the player playing, takes priority over gameplay.
The goal is to prevent player getting stuck by Any Means Necessary; keep them always occupied so they don't get frustrated and quit. For example:
You always now where to go thanks to the always present directions and the minimap, quick-time events replace sequences where skill mattered, there is a tutorial for everything, treasures and trinkets keep players, who have hoarder inclinations, occupied.
The original has None of Those. You were presented with a level and that was the obstacle. The satisfaction was deeper, you felt good because you actually had to suffer and persevere and choose to not quit. When you finally you solved the level you really accomplished something.
It's fine to like a certain kind of game. There are plenty of games that are hard and if you want to play them - good for you! But it feels kind of weird to say that the quality of a game is relative to how frustrating it is to play. Games are a form of entertainment after all.
Also, quicktime events "replacing skill" is a little unfair. What skill did they replace, and how did it differ mechanically from a quicktime event?
Especially when you quit a game for a week, and come back having forgotten the map and your latest goal.
If you make a dungeon crawler for the express purpose of making a dungeon crawler (Grimrock?) it can be fun to lack directions, have no minimap, take notes, draw maps by hand... but not every game means to be like that, and it isn't the only valid way to make a game.
Sometimes the "on-rails" approach is actually the most fitting. Mirror's Edge, anyone? The best part of that game was getting into a groove and feeling the flow as you dash through levels. "The grind" is antithetical to the point of the game.
Remember, it's just bits- games are for enjoyment. Suffering isn't the point (unless that's what you enjoy)
I don't think it was about suffering, as it was about how challenging it is. Think about other (non-gaming) experiences. The best are the challenging ones, that require your full attention. Games work the same way, and on the other end are those that hold your hand and make you sleep or quit before a tough game will.
The reboot did indeed have quicktime events, which are generally lame, but it used them sparingly—I never felt like I was playing Dragon's Lair. The thing it did better than the original was present a cohesive world. The island felt like every location had a real sense of place.
Everyone has a their own sense of what "lowest common denominator" means, but if yout think it means "reasonable controls, no horrific and misplaced difficulty spikes, good visuals, and an engaging story", then I agree.
Its quite hard to be stuck in the games these days even without the hoarding. The games are rather easy most of the time.
I don't know if I particularly enjoy this
With the first Tomb Tomb Raider reboot, the gameplay got easier, the jumps were a lot easier and one got a second chance to unrealistically grab the edge to prevent a fall, there were still a lot of puzzles, more combat and some fantasy elements like a second Lara as enemy.
Tomb Raider 2013 reboot was a superb game. Though its new survivor theme was very different from the older game series. It was more action oriented (one had to kill about 800 enemies in the whole game, most of them human style zombies), had only 6 optional hidden rooms each with a single puzzle to reach the other end. The first two chapters were a tutorial and slow paced, but then within one hour Lara turned from a naive girl to a warrior - a bit too fast. Tomb Raider 2013 reboot changed a lot during the development phase, as one can see in an early development video "Tomb Raider Ascension", that one of the devs posted on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbJjcBC2rnc
The upcoming Rise of the Tomb Raider has a story about supernatural(?) and is more about hunting, sneaking and scavenging materials. Hopefully they can integrate more tombs with (non optional) puzzles and less enemies.
My wife and I planned out each evening to be our "movie night" for this game, and found the pace and story well crafted.
Also what are doing on HN instead of plowing trough Pillars of Eternity ...