Slimebeast said:
In my opinion no. I argue that it satisfies people on a superficial level, but by the gameplay being so smooth and automatic, and by removing nearly all challenge the gamer's effort is dull and passive. You basically just point the stick forward. The platforming is extremely simple and it's almost impossible to miss a jump and fall. The path to every target is painted in white and if you still can't find your way there's eagle vision. The survival mechanics and XP-system were meaningless and unneeded, just cosmetics to make the player feel rewarded. Tomb Raider doesn't require you to think or to use barely any of your skills and reflexes. You just stare at the screen and instinctively follow what's ordered without your brain being focused on the task. Should a game almost play by itself and instead use cynical tricks to make you feel like you accomplished something (modern game makers are extremely aware of how people's reward system works)? Shouldn't a game require challenge more than just the basics of moving a stick and pressing the attack buton? I think Tomb Raider was good as an interactive experience, but not good as a game. |
Making a game more or less difficult doesn't make it any less of a game. I mean, to some, being too easy makes a game boring and repetitive. While I'd agree that the game was fairly lenient, I had a blast seeing just all the ways lara could die. It was actually really funny, and me and my gf were dying because the game is so over the top with punishing lara.
Not every game needs to be hard. But every game needs something enjoyable about the game. I loved he hunting and collecting and the gruesome s&m bullshit lmao.
