One more thing--I think most who end up playing the new Tomb Raider will agree that it's a different beast than Uncharted. It does a lot to make it a different feeling experience. The set pieces are similar but they're not what make the game rock.
| d21lewis said: One more thing--I think most who end up playing the new Tomb Raider will agree that it's a different beast than Uncharted. It does a lot to make it a different feeling experience. The set pieces are similar but they're not what make the game rock. |
I agree whol heartedly! Uncharted felt much more like an action game (aka a shooter) while TR actually feels like an (action) adventure game.
I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!
Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.
I've just recently replayed TR: Underworld. Loved it, just like the first time, and despite some flaws, it brought back memories of first TR, back in '96.
Had to replay TR Reboot again to have fresh insight when comparing them...it still remains utter crap, and not TR game at all in its core.
With this 6 mils, seems that all my hopes of CD seeing how profoundly un-TR this reboot is and fixing future games will slowly dissipate.
Rest in peace Lara, it was fun until they've turned you into this modern goo.
I played it for free on PS plus.. Since it is free for ps3 there.. It is surpirsingly very good
| irstupid said: And this is why people talk about a video game crash all the time. Square Enix complaining about Tomb Raider sales. I mean sure the game only had like 4 million sales when they complained, but still. If a game has to sell multiple million to make a profit you only have yourself to blame. |
How? Those eye popping graphics people like aren't exactly cheap. It cost big time cash to produce them. I have no idea how it's there fault as that's what most players demand these days, but oh well
The game is not good;...it is amazing!
From the first hour till the last one I enjoyed the game.
This days I feel a lot that I have to force me through games but not this one, i loved to hunt and to explore
it was also not to short and in fact I thought it would end sooner..
The little touches like when she talk with a headset and your hear the sound come from your controller make the game loveable.
The game is so good that I am proud I bought it for full price, in fact two times because I also bought it for my brother :);
DanneSandin said:
I actually DON'T think the sequal should be an open world. Having more of a linear game allows for a more complex and better story to be told imo, the game gets more focused. I think they should keep the format that they have going with "smaller" areas (that's still pretty big at times) that's open for exploration. Not everything has to be open world nowadays. |
Yes and no. There are a ton of games which I would despise if they were open world, and if the bulk of the gameplay had been tombs (which need to be like mazes to protect their contents) I would be inclined to agree. But tombs are a tiny portion of the overall experience, and open seems to fit Lara's character design. Half of her equipment, be it the bow, the rope ascender, or the climbing axe, is stuff used to get around in some really spectacular ways. Your protagonist crosses hundred foot canyons by shooting rope arrows across and zip-lining across.
An ocean would stop her from crossing. Miles of featureless tundra or dunes would probably stop her, as would the north face of the Eiger.
The maps are encircled with undergrowth and twenty foot rocks, none of which ought to phase her in the slightest. The worst offender was probably shanty-town, which stopped her with some absolutely broken city layout. Video game "buildings" with terrible layouts and floor plans you would never see in the real world are a pet peeve of mine.
I was willing to give Tomb Raider a pass because this was probably a hardware limitation. The graphics are pretty and they have to limit the maps somehow. But generally if I can see something, Lara should be able to climb it.
DanneSandin said:
Well, that was kind of my point; this game shouldn't have cost that much. Very very few games should cost that much. We get innovation when developers has to work around problems |
They don't have to cost that much, but when you are simulating a person that can use a bow and fire arms, combined with platforming, puzzle solving, in a wide variety of environments you don't see a low budget game.
If you use 8 bit graphics like minecraft you don't end up there. That is true...
Uncharted 1 was about $100,000,000 but Uncharted 2 was about $20,000,000 because the core engine was the same... It costs big money to build these types of game engines because they are extremely complex inside. People complain about sequels but this is how investors make their money in thegames industry. The first one "hopefully" breaks even, and subsequent sequels give the the return they are looking for.
In the end, I think gamers want both types of games... Games that cost $100,000,000 because they are innovating through immersiveness and realism, and low budget games that innovate by adding new gameplay elements to well understood game techniques. Games like Minecraft, Braid, Journey, etc.
Egann said:
Yes and no. There are a ton of games which I would despise if they were open world, and if the bulk of the gameplay had been tombs (which need to be like mazes to protect their contents) I would be inclined to agree. But tombs are a tiny portion of the overall experience, and open seems to fit Lara's character design. Half of her equipment, be it the bow, the rope ascender, or the climbing axe, is stuff used to get around in some really spectacular ways. Your protagonist crosses hundred foot canyons by shooting rope arrows across and zip-lining across. An ocean would stop her from crossing. Miles of featureless tundra or dunes would probably stop her, as would the north face of the Eiger. The maps are encircled with undergrowth and twenty foot rocks, none of which ought to phase her in the slightest. The worst offender was probably shanty-town, which stopped her with some absolutely broken city layout. Video game "buildings" with terrible layouts and floor plans you would never see in the real world are a pet peeve of mine. I was willing to give Tomb Raider a pass because this was probably a hardware limitation. The graphics are pretty and they have to limit the maps somehow. But generally if I can see something, Lara should be able to climb it. |
I'm assuming they'll go in a slightly different direction with the sequel; they can't have her being a survivor in EVERY game, and so I don't see the need to have an open world for her to run around in. Have certain areas open, just as in this game, but having an open world, as in GTA, would kind of undercut Lara and the game as a whole. Yes, she's an explorerer, but one with a goal, and I fear that that goal/objective would be totally lost in an open world setting.
But then again, if they can pull it off in the same way they pulled off this reboot, who am I to argue? I just want Lara to find her stride yet again =)
I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!
Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.
deadly2choke said:
would you say its worth owning the console this early? |
To be completely honest, i would have to say no unless you are interested in playing FFXIV. Though it will only be a matter of time before theres more games available. It does feel very green still. No PS1 and PS2 games on the shop yet, for example. The shop itself looks very vacant, especially compared to the PS3 one that is filled to the brim with weekly/monthly promotions and content.
No support for remote servers (if you want to watch stuff from your PC on TV). You have to use the PS3 or 360 for that.
Dont want to make it sound like its a bad buy though, its just very infant still. The fields are still green and waiting to be filled. I dont think its a bad buy to get one at this point though. Its very unlikely the price will drop for at least another year, so if you have the money, why not? Its like owning a bit of the future. If you like FFXIV, then you will get plenty of gaming off it to justify a purchase.
By the end of the year there should be plenty worth having though.
| JGarret said: Yeah, right now the library isn´t the greatest but that´s the norm, being just 3.5 months old.I remember getting a PS2 at launch, quickly getting bored with the launch games and waiting till March for the first great game, which was Onimusha.Now the same repeats itself, with Infamous arriving this month. But there´s also the PS Store to check out, don´t know if you´re into survival horror but the PS4 looks like it´ll become, home console wise, the system for this kind of game.There´s Outlast, then in April there´s Daylight, later in the year The Evil Within and Alien Isolation, early next year Soma, from the creators of Amnesia. |
Yeah i know. I am already planning the purchases for the rest of the year. Evil within, Dragon age 3 and (fingers crossed) maybe Fallout 4 in the fall. I dont like the combat in the Witcher, but i might get the Witcher 3 just for those gorgeous vistas. Heck, maybe i will take the fall on Watch Dogs at some point if it proves interesting.
| d21lewis said: One more thing--I think most who end up playing the new Tomb Raider will agree that it's a different beast than Uncharted. It does a lot to make it a different feeling experience. The set pieces are similar but they're not what make the game rock. |
Based on what i have played, Uncharted is alot more linear and Tomb Raider is more open ended with some areas to explore and more about survival than just constant action pieces. If i'm honest, i like Tomb raider better so far, though i have a special love for Uncharted 3. With Amy hennig gone though... im not so sure about future installments though. :x
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
