Starker on 14/6/2016 at 03:42
Actually, Tomb Raider has always been style over substance. In all categories, it was outdone by actual platformers, puzzle games or action games. As far as "depth" goes, I would put it closer to something like Ico.
GMDX Dev on 14/6/2016 at 04:11
Quote Posted by Starker
Actually, Tomb Raider has always been style over substance. In all categories, it was outdone by actual platformers, puzzle games or action games. As far as "depth" goes, I would put it closer to something like Ico.
There's no "actually" here, because nobody made any claims otherwise regarding the franchise as a whole. Now though, I will do that: I'd say the original few pre-AoD were pretty competent games and far from style over substance, though certainly nothing groundbreaking, then became increasingly style over substance beginning with TR: Legend, which you may be surprised to hear was designed by Doug Church. The original set of games delivered decent platforming, puzzling, atmosphere and exploration, though I wouldn't hold them up as the best example in any category indeed, ultimately they were competent and delivered a more mentally stimulating and enjoyable experience than this new nonsense for me, and that's just silly given how technologically inferior they are.
As for it being outdone by "actual" genres of games, well it was hybrid with a wider scope, it's only natural to be a sum of its parts rather than something that excels in all. The combat especially was exceptionally poor, though still with merit when you consider it was more about acrobatics and avoiding attacks without falling off ledges more that it was actually shooting things.
Starker on 14/6/2016 at 04:19
A game that aims for you is not style over substance? Okay then.
GMDX Dev on 14/6/2016 at 04:46
Edited the previous mentioning combat.
To address that further, consider that combat was just one element of the gameplay of many and doesn't define the game as whole, and also that this was pre-mouselook days (or just as it had entered the scene with Terminator/Duke 3D rather). Nonetheless I consider it an undesirable aspect of the game, yet it was a good game despite the fact. Again: platforming, puzzles, exploration, atmosphere, that all had substance. Generally there was like 15-30 enemies per level on average, the game never was about combat anyway.
I get it, I am quick dismiss a game that aims for you too, I detest that nonsense, but this was 1996 so there's perhaps a technical excuse. Acrobatics-based combat + no mouselook would be a disastrous combination. Of course this should have been rectified at least by Legend, but the series had already gone downhill by then.
Dev_Anj on 14/6/2016 at 05:24
Please, let's not turn this into another "90s golden age of gaming" thread.
Starker on 14/6/2016 at 05:28
Maybe the combat wasn't a huge deal in the first game, but it was still a prominent part of it. And in the second game it was front and center. Also, the puzzles were really not anything remarkable either, as far as I'm concerned. I think describing them as "competent" is really rather generous. They were functional, that's about as far as I'd go. Lastly, the platforming was pretty fiddly and clunky even without the camera issues -- something that the series never really managed to get right.
Really, what the game was any good at was some of the level design and providing a set of various colourful exotic locations to explore. The game may not look like much right now, but back at the day these graphics were amazing, especially for a 3D game. Oh, and the marketing and the hype surrounding it was pretty crazy and sometimes outright disturbing.
GMDX Dev on 14/6/2016 at 05:31
dev_anj: Your input was not necessary, once again. The discussion has yet to stray from Tomb Raider.
Starker: yes, the level design was great. And again, I wouldn't say the individual elements were a shining example in any category of gameplay, but absolutely competent regarding puzzles and platforming. A lot of games were clunky and finicky back then.
I wouldn't say the combat was the primary focus in the second game, it still remained about the puzzles and platforming, heck some levels had no combat at all (Monastery, first shipwreck level), though there were a couple combat-heavy levels in kind.
henke on 14/6/2016 at 06:07
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
But hey, most people simply don't recognize these things or do not have anything worthwhile to compare it to, or they played some older games but never actually
played, completed and analyzed them, or they simply don't care "because they don't play games to have to think". And so the ancient art of great gameplay was lost, almost overnight, and there's just no real demand for it beyond making it look good.
Oh God do you have to shit up another thread just so you can pat yourself on the back for being smart enough to have finished Tomb Raider 1? :rolleyes:
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
In contrast there's rather a lot of gameplay elements: platforming, exploration, combat, puzzles, crafting, RPG progression, yet each and every one of those elements is indeed super shallow and just not very meaningful, engaging nor synergistic.
You are really underselling the combat, which in the new Tomb Raider, is great, and a huge improvement over the earlier games. And while the platforming doesn't have the complexity of the older games, it does serve the combat well by being able to move around easily and with fluidity while fighting dudes. The platforming and the combat are certainly synergistic. AND engaging!
And yes I too finished Tomb Raider 1 so there's my 90's Gamer Big Dick credentials.
Sulphur on 14/6/2016 at 06:10
Quote Posted by Dev_Anj
Please, let's not turn this into another "90s golden age of gaming" thread.
Why not? THE 90s ARE NEVAR COMING BACK EVAHHHHH AGAAAIIINNN
*dons Nirvana hoodie and weeps bitter tears into dad's Sony Walkman*
GMDX Dev on 14/6/2016 at 06:33
Quote Posted by henke
Oh God do you have to shit up another thread just so you can pat yourself on the back for being smart enough to have finished Tomb Raider 1? :rolleyes:
Well now, you're passionate about poorly designed garbage, aren't you. Rushing in on the offensive to attack another member bashing your precious AAA.
Your reading comprehension, check it. Tomb Raider 1 was not mentioned or even alluded to at the time of posting, I simply said "older games" (note: plural), which obviously could be anything, and more than one.
And if that statement came across as back-patting (in hindsight it easily could), that was not what was intended. I was bitching about other gamers contributing to the decline in standards due to demanding things that "look super cool" and not things that
play super cool, rather than patting my own back.
Quote:
You are really underselling the combat, which in the new Tomb Raider, is great
Good one. It's average at best.
Quote:
and a huge improvement over the earlier games.
Well that's not difficult.
Return from whence you came. Back to all those threads you create that are a fine representation of your poor tastes, which as far as I am concerned are what is shitting up this thread. Or sub-forum in general, rather.
