| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (85)

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:06PM blueskyv201 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Overall, I'm pretty excited, but this right here . . .
"Lara will have to constantly forage for food and water to stay alive."
It's one of those things that sound cool on paper but I just can't picture it working in the game.
Remember Far Cry 2, people? Malaria pills, jamming weapons, driving sections . . . *shivers*. THOSE WERE NOT FUN.

Don't make the same mistake, Crystal Dynamics.

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:12PM Jawmuncher said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@blueskyv201
Well if they handle it like snake eater where food was abundant and not a problem should work well.

"This is HORRIBLE"
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:14PM Jetz said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@blueskyv201

More like they are placing Laura in world of Fallout, the picture says it all.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:22PM Jack Kevorkian said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@Jetz Far Cry was top five game of this gen. The malaria pills were scripted events. You had to drive distances because Africa is large. Jamming Weapons because Africa is hard.

This game sounds like Castlevania.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:29PM Hunter2223 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@blueskyv201
The only issue I had with farcry 2 was that the mechanics weren't put together well. Having weapons that degrade is cool, don't have them fall apart after a magazine of ammo goes through them, Needing to find and take pills to fight off the symptoms of a disease was just fine... now the driving sections, that's another deal altogether.
If they had the ability to turn in some quests over the phone/radio, and gave a guard timer for how long it would take before guards came back to a station that would have worked as well, and have roving vehicles not chase you like a rabid hamster on crack the second they even kinda see you... Combine the fact that those did not exist and driving was pretty miserable.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:30PM Vidikron said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Jack Kevorkian

Far Cry was a potentially great game dragged down by annoying game mechanics. For example, the driving wouldn't have been so bad if you could have driven more than 100 meters before being swarmed by a patrol. And clearing out the check points was basically useless because they respawned within minutes. No where near top 5 IMO. I had the potential, but it was squandered.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:32PM Vidikron said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Vidikron

Ugh... *It had potential

What an amusingly embarrassing typo :P
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:59PM DangerMouse001 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Vidikron

I would buy a Far Cry 3 in a heartbeat if those issues were fixed.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 3:22PM DigitalImpulse said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@blueskyv201 She looks like Sarah Connor
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 3:30PM blueskyv201 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jack Kevorkian
You can of course justify all of the silly mechanics that game had because they all make sense in the real world. However, let's not forget that it's a game. And, first and foremost, games should be fun.
Having to unjam your gun every 15 seconds was not fun, neither was driving to a location for 5 minutes just to get sniped within the first minute of a mission and have to start it all over again.
I admit though, driving was made worse by the horrible implementation of checkpoints.
Developers sometimes forget that realism in not the ultimate goal of gaming, in fact, it's the exact opposite.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 3:50PM Vidikron said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@blueskyv201

I didn't even think any of it was that realistic. There's nothing realistic about check point guards that re-spawn every few minutes and patrols that for some reason can identify you as a foe from a 100 meters away. It was just absurd that they instantly chase you for no reason at all. And let's not forget that the vehicles seemed to be made of paper mâché. It was bad enough that patrols constantly swarmed you, but having your vehicle catch fire and blow up after a few shots made it even worse.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 4:00PM aughscreennames said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Far Cry 2 was crap, everything wanted to kill you and it was pretty much impossible to ignore enemies because of the stupid handicap system that let AI vehicles quickly catch up with you even if you were travelling at full speed. If you ignored them theyd just disable your vehicle, if you got out of the vehicle theyd run you over for an instant kill. It was terrible. The malaria pills were annoying because youd be in the middle of a fight and then the stupid malaria thing would start which you HAVE to address right away or you die, it wasnt something you could postpone or prepare for like eating.

MGS3 was great, I enjoyed hunting and didnt mind having to eat every once in awhile. The hunting mechanic can work quite well.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 4:58PM acefondu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@blueskyv201

What's funny about the pills is you ran out at very specific points in the game. I played it only doing sidequests and mucking about and I NEVER ran out of pills for 15 hours. Then I started doing the main quest and began "running out" lol.

But yeah over all FC2 was garbage.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 6:17PM kentuckyfried said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@blueskyv201

I'm hoping for toned-down, mgs3 type survival action, but in more of an open world setting vs mgs3's mostly linear path.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 6:25PM kentuckyfried said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@blueskyv201

good lord....the driving made me nauseous, but after reading your
guys' comments, I'll likely never go back to even try playing through this title.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 6:36PM Jack Kevorkian said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jack Kevorkian you guys were just losers that Far Cry 2 defeated. The game would have been far too easy without respawns and plus you were supposed to be an evil, maiac killer...who cares if you had to mow through some checkpoints on your way to slaughering Central Africa?

chumps, the lot of you. I would love to burn you all with flamethrowers and stoke the coals with the bones of your children.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 9:05PM DustbinK said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@blueskyv201 Everything but Malaria pills were fine IMO. Games where weapons degrade is realistic though FC2s setting on that could have been tweaked a bit.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 10:42PM ferret said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@blueskyv201

I LOVED farcry 2. absolutely loved it. driving could get a bit hairy at high speed, but it's a jungle afterall. such a good game, and i wish more games took a lesson from it. did it have problems? sure, some of the ideas in this thread would be nice improvements... but yea, i loved it.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2010 12:32AM LENSconcept said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@blueskyv201

Far Cry C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2010 2:11AM Nolan North said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@blueskyv201
"I'm stiiiiiiiillllll in a dreeeeeeeam, TOMB RAIDEEEERRRRRR"
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2010 2:20AM Vidikron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jack Kevorkian

I just don't have time for annoying crap. I tried to like the game, and there were certainly many aspects I did like, but overall the game had too many annoying flaws. I had other games I could be playing so I moved on.

As for the check points... if a game has to rely on numerous near instantaneously re-spawning checkpoints to maintain a reasonable challenge then that right there tells you the game is flawed. The missions should be the focal point of the both the main story and the challenge. Instead, I just dreaded crossing the map to my next objective. Not because I couldn't cross the map, but rather because I knew it was going to be the same tedious BS as the previous 100 times I tried to go any significant distance. It was a completely unnecessary game mechanic as the game would have been fine without that crap. In fact, it would have been far better.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:09PM Double J said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I got my issue yesterday. The game looks gorgeous and sounds like something I'd actually be interested in playing.

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:09PM Enosoma said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The other day (yesterday) you guys mentioned something about Square Enix and this game.

Are they making this new TR?

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:15PM milliniar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Enosoma
SquareEnix bought Eidos, and is now SquareEnix Europe. Crystal Dynamics was included in the purchase iirc
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:17PM WPstart said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Enosoma Square bought Eidos that owned Crystal Dynamics, the developers of recent Tomb Raider titles. So Tomb Raider now belongs to Square-Enix though CD will still remain developers.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:11PM Jawmuncher said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Very interesting.
If they can pull if off, Lara Croft will come back and take back her throne.

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:12PM oggsy92 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thinking of how many times this series has been 'rebooted' hurts my head.. However, I wish it all the best, sounds interesting so far..

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:13PM Theeinferno said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
This sounds very interesting. I wanna tomb raid in public, and blow shit up!

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:16PM Mechanism said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This actually sounds pretty interesting now!

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:18PM JonahStein said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Here's for hoping that this remote island has tigers on it. Maybe a whole level detailing the origins of Lara's tiger murdering habits.
Also, is there any chance that she didn't have an annoying British accent when age was 21? Like maybe she just picked it up later when she was dating some South African tiger hunter?

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:18PM Haikiba said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sounds Metroidey!

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 5:15PM ironneko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Haikiba

I happen to find a distinct Minecraft-like feel to the description.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:26PM Educatedfool25 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Anyone else think the new Lara looks sorta like an abused Sandra Bullock?

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 8:18PM samdavis said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Educatedfool25 - At first I thought about Jennifer Carpenter from Dexter. But now she's lookin' a bit more like a mix between Missy Peregrym and a younger Hilary Swank.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:27PM TheShaper said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually, MGS3 came to mind. And if this new Tomb Raider turns out to be half as good as that game it would be the first Tomb Raider game to draw my attention.

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:33PM cylet said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Joystiq

That's the dirtiest "fresh-faced" Lara Croft I've ever seen, in the best way possible

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:34PM Reaver Zero said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Speaking of the "blow Lara up" code...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oqzPb1mvs8&NR=1

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:35PM Jovrick said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Open Word: Walk for 45 minutes across several thousand miles of flat terrain dotted with identical huts in order to reach a mission where you squat behind a chest high crate while shooting at a band of AI-less enemies who've spawned out of a copy/pasted building and are currently running around in circles while clipping through the various procedurally generated trees and dirt mounds that make up the game world (that's how you tell they're the bad guys). Then you walk for a few more hours in order to reach one of the race missions where you run through markers while praying the game doesn't glitch out and cause you to clip through the ground.

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 3:15PM Punkrawk Bbob said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Jovrick

Wow... Someone's become a jaded gamer over the years.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 8:22PM samdavis said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jovrick - Gotta add a +1 to this. Not for the generally surly disposition but because people are sort of eating up what's been some pretty monotonous and uninventive gameplay dressed up with nice little buzzwords to describe the new "technology" used to achieve certain effects.

Here's to hoping that this changes that a bit. The idea is really intriguing and the tone and atmosphere set up by that cover shot make me hope that they really do reboot this one and make it as gritty as possible.

After what Ubisoft did to Splinter Cell, I'm wondering if anyone will every make another game that doesn't look to simply sell the most copies.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 8:57PM Jovrick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@samdavis
Well at least one person agrees with me. Open world basically means trading in level design and variety for raw scale just for the sake of it (and the sake of proving that you're engine can do it). Realism also leads to mind numbing tedium and boring gameplay, and that push for realism has been the main problem with the Tomb Raider series from the beginning. They're just bringing back the part of this series that made it a drag to play in the first place.

Laura Croft and the Guardian of Light is the first Tomb Raider I've actually enjoyed because it actually plays like a video game. They should take that game, with all its power ups, arcade gameplay, and varied level designs, and turn it into a larger 3d action adventure game. That would be far better than yet another game where you have to spend hours wandering around a gigantic procedurally generated map just to experience the fact that the developers can in fact render seventy billion miles of virtual dirt.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2010 12:42AM LENSconcept said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jovrick

Tomb Raider realism? In platforming, yes, but combat, nuh-uh. My big problem with TR games is that it takes >10 shots to kill a human or animal enemy. Not too realistic. I agree with you that quality should not be traded for quantity, but look at Arkham Asylum. Arguably one of the best-looking games of the generation and it was 'open world.' Studios can pull off a good-looking, open-world game.
Ultimately though, if you don't like open-world games, don't play them. I don't care for Madden, but I'm not going to berate someone for liking it.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2010 12:19PM blueskyv201 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jovrick
I definitely agree as well. Open world can work for some games but most of the time it waters down the experience for the sake of adding length to the game.

Developers get too hung up on "choice" and exploration as if it's the holy grail of gaming. I don't want to explore your procedurally generated world filled with generic environment pieces and people.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:36PM pcs800 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree with blueskyv201 in that the whole stay alive by constantly finding food and water does NOT sound fun. I hate timed games, and that's basically what the food and water thing is.
On the other hand, I love the tomb raider series, have bought every release since day one.

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:37PM pcs800 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree, don't like timed games.

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:41PM RickGhastly said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As long as they find a way to keep the puzzles and environmental interactions on par with previous titles, this has the makings of a great game. I just hope they don't water down those elements in lieu of combat (Tomb Raider should always be around 75% environmental, 25% action. TR:Legend aside, the entries that toyed with that formula were the weakest).

Either way, it's sounding awesome so far.

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 2:43PM Dalrint said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Why call it Tomb Raider? It doesn't sound anything like a Tomb Raider game. And it's not like the formula itself is broken. Uncharted is practically the same game and it sells like delicious waffle pancakes.

Maybe they could just try making a good tomb raider? Like Anniversary and legend.

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 3:19PM Punkrawk Bbob said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dalrint

Surprised it took so many comments for me to find someone with a similar thought. I mean, outside of Lara Croft... What about this is Tomb Raider? Not saying it'll be bad, I just don't get why even bother keeping the title if instead of raiding tombs you'll be roaming fields? That's about as nonsensicalness as if Star Wars was cast in the ocean with boats.

That being said, I haven't played Tomb Raider since TR2 on the PC - I'll have to keep an eye out for details on this one.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 3:37PM A Sandwich said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Punkrawk Bbob

What if there's tombs in them there fields?
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2010 3:48PM Punkrawk Bbob said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@A Sandwich

We call those cemeteries, and they usually have zombies in them.

this could be good!
Reply

Featured Stories

Image

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Posted on May 25th 2012 7:30PM

Image

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Posted on May 25th 2012 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW