Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
While not wrong, it is logically following the direction the trilogy shifted the game in. The trilogy started the focus onto backstory, the trilogy put greater focus on action sequences (and introduced QTEs to the series), the trilogy put a lot greater focus on the combat and shooting mechanics, the trilogy gutted the puzzles and made them very obvious and many of the levels linear.
I mean that's how I felt about the bulk of the trilogy. The high point was Anniversary and that was a remake of the original in the new canon. And even that gutted out a lot of memorable aspects.
1. Okay, that's a bit unfounded of me. It's more along the lines of Squenix being to afraid to dish out a new IP, so instead the decide to reinvent a preexisting one into something unrecognizable. At least, in Rise of's case.
2. For me and a lot of other people, the trilogy still did that stuff well. It also remembered to have actual tombs in it and keep Lara a character with personality traits to her instead of obtuse observations. Not saying you have to see it that way, just saying that's the way I see it.
3. Fair enough, I suppose.
Yea, as I said I know where you're coming from, but thats how things goes I'm afraid. The Lara Croft series has a weight on its name, I think it was to be expected the devs would rather use it than create a new one. Its sad? Yes, def is.
In my opinion the worst part is that the majority of players doesn't seem to care much about that kind of thing, so they just keep shoving down our throats whatever they like, people are gonna buy it anyway.
Anyway, my opinion that Rise is better than a lot of the latest few TR titles remains. It has more challenges and exploration than TR2013 or Legend. Anniversary was pretty good too, but only because it had TR1 to copy.
But I have absolutely no problem with the current Lara. She was always silent, snarky and confident and positive as well, but let's remember that this current Lara is still a developing character. The original series had a character *setting*, but *no development*. She was there already. This new series is as much a reboot as an origin story. Rise is her second adventure, not her fortieth or hundreth (like in the original games).
TR4 also had a high bodycount, but the game was incredibly large and had numerous suspenseful segments without enemies.
Agree.
Also agree.
Is it drastically different from the cart-wheeling double-D-cup and braided ponytail who pulled herself up onto a ledge into a spread-legged handstand? Yes.
But it's more realistic, at least so far, especially regarding the tombs. They're as big as a small settlement would be able to devote time to. Only the Egyptians with their hordes of slaves could build the Valley of the Kings. I don't see the Maori being able to swing it. At most you'll see a natural cave with a few minor additions, or making extensive use of existing cave systems, but unless there's a team of well-equipped architects and thousands of laborers with decades to work, you're not going to see huge tombs.
Yes, I miss the snarky one-liners, and every time she opens an old codex and says "it's an old codex!" in surprise, I do actually say "DUH! What'd you think it was, the latest issue of Rolling Stone?" to the TV, but I can accept this Lara Croft. Yes, they could have called it anything else and it would not sell because everyone and their mother would slam it for being a Tomb Raider/Lara Croft ripoff.
Before we go too far down that path, let me remind you that Lara Croft was slammed initially for being an Indiana Jones ripoff.
The biggest problems I do have with Survivor and Rise are the "you need special gear to enter this tomb" and then you don't get that gear until far later into the game, and then you have to backtrack all the way to the first area, that you forget all the places you needed that particular item.
Another one is that you go through the game telling yourself "hopefully I get those explosives soon to open those blocked tombs" and then when you finally get the gear, it's one room. It reminds me of Skyrim's loot system where there's an iron helmet, a steel dagger, and 3 gold inside a Master-level chest, but a Daedric Battleaxe of Oh Hell No lying on the shelf above that. WTF? Put the massive tomb behind the metal barrier or heavy wooden planks that I need explosives for, not the small "this is Joe. He died. Bye Joe." tombs.
Lastly, and probably the biggest peeve, is that the very first soldier/mercenary you kill in the game should yield a combat knife, a handgun and ammo, and some sort of gear (utility belt, etc). It should not be so late into the story before you get something as common as a combat knife.
Yes, this Lara Croft is still a n00b, yes it's painful to play as a n00b, no I don't want my video games to be so realistic as to require food and water and sleep and a bath and to take a dump every so often, but it's not likely to go back to the old super-jumping-dual-wielding-cargo-shorts-over-a-1-piece-thongsuit-with-massive-b00bs that Tomb Raider built its name on, and I think that as they move farther away from that core design (no pun intended) they're going to find smaller audiences. As long as they adjust their expectations accordingly, they'll do fine. Core and Crystal expected perpetual growth. Square thought they had bought the goose that lays the golden eggs for a pittance and were highly upset that it wasn't a smash hit like it once was.
Games like Uncharted come along to fill a void left by other games. "I want a Tomb Raider thing that's darker, less booby, and more realistic: I'll name it Uncharted".
Meanwhile, someone else says "You know I really liked the Castlevania series, but I'm so sick of them not moving beyond 2D. I'm going to make my vision of what Castlevania should be these days, and name it Devil May Cry."
No, not that DmC crap; the first one. That's what Castlevania should have been. Lament of Innocence was fine, and Curse of Darkness was tolerable, but Lords of Shadow 1 and 2 were actually Devil May Cry ripoffs, especially with the "shifting back and forth through tiime" as a direct parallel to "shifting in and out of limbo".
So yes, this is Tomb Raider, this is Lara Croft. It's not the Tomb Raider or Lara Croft we were initially sold, but it's what's currently bearing that product stamp. The Whopper was bigger when I was a kid, Coca-Cola tasted better, minimum wage was $4/hour, and we had way fewer children with cancer.
Times change.