why does she do it anyway? [Archive] - www.tombraiderforums.com

rr_carroll

13-07-08, 04:50

From the TRGold_Manual.pdf:

INTRODUCTION
Lara Croft, daughter of Lord Henshingly Croft, was raised to be an
aristocrat from birth. After attending finishing school at the age of 21,
Lara’s marriage into wealth had seemed assured, but on her way home
from a skiing trip her chartered plane had crashed deep in the heart
of the Himalayas. The only survivor, Lara learned how to depend on
her wits to stay alive in hostile conditions a world away from her
sheltered upbringing. 2 weeks later when she walked
into the village of Tokakeriby her experiences had a
profound effect on her. Unable to stand the claustrophobic
suffocating atmosphere of upper-class
British society, she realized that she was
only truly alive when she was travelling
alone. Over the 8 following years she
acquired an intimate knowledge of ancient
civilizations across the globe. Her family soon
disowned their prodigal daughter, and she
turned to writing to fund her trips. Famed for
discovering several ancient sites of profound
archaeological interest she made a name for
herself by publishing travel books and
detailed journals of her exploits.

chakotay1

14-07-08, 09:30

TR Love your avatar picture I have got as my desktop wallpaper! For the last couple of years I had the box cover of legend as my wallpaper then I saw that fell in love with it and changed wallpaper

TR love

15-07-08, 10:39

lol its so smexy :P i forget where i got it from though..where DID i get it from?

Tombraiderx08

16-07-08, 03:21

pshhhh, the biography's been updated, and we all know her father is/was "lord" richard croft... And she does it for sport, as said in the very first cutscene (well, the first one with her in it anyways)

TR love

16-07-08, 03:55

yeah well. i still curious about the artifacts. i een isnt she like stealing them? lol

Jordan_Boi

16-07-08, 10:18

yeah well. i still curious about the artifacts. i een isnt she like stealing them? lol

They don't particularly belong to anyone, so it's not classed as stealing, she just does it for fun, I can't see why not, it's better than looking to find evidence about her mother.

Obscure

16-07-08, 10:34

I think it's good that CD have actually given her some motivation towards finding these artifacts. No matter how much people bash her for trying to find her parents at least it gives her an excuse to find these artifacts. In TR 1-5 she does have some excuses to get them such as the bad guys trying to get their hands on them and what not.

EDIT: Also because this is in TR1 section, she is asked to get the first piece of the Scion of which she goes to get and then when she meets Larson at the end of Tomb of Qualopec, he lets slip that Natla was trying to kill her for it and so she goes to Natla and finds out that shes going after the second piece in St Francis Folly.

dexter void

16-07-08, 12:07

I think Lara does it for sport as others have pointed out but I also think for the status. If you imagine a headline like "Lara Croft the world famous archeologist explorer has discovered and claimed another ancient artifact". Imagine the press you'd get. She is like a famous figurehead, not a celeb as any idiot can be a celeb. Being famous on a worldwide scale is wholly different.

Her career depends upon finding new artifacts and learning new knowledge of the civilization they came from. Although you'd have to be a bit mental to risk your life on numerous occasions!

Eddie Haskell

16-07-08, 13:32

There is no "I think" or "I believe" needed here. Reading the introduction from the game that rr_carroll provided here and with what Lara says in the game itself spells it out crystal clear.

First, her experience in the Himalayas triggered something profound in her. Two, like Greta Garbo she "vants to be alone" in her travels and exploration. Three, she publishes books of her exploits for funding after she was disowned by her family. Four, she explicitly states that she does what she does for the sport (excitement and adventure), not to "make her wallet rumble".

So it is all there, explicit and concise.

Deepthought

16-07-08, 13:34

I find it hard to believe that Lara does it for sport, because after the events in TR1, I would certainly have my fill of adventure for life.

Eddie Haskell

16-07-08, 13:38

I find it hard to believe that Lara does it for sport, because after the events in TR1, I would certainly have my fill of adventure for life.

Than she's a liar. ;)

stereopathic

16-07-08, 14:18

Eddie Haskell

16-07-08, 14:29

i wouldn't exactly call her motivations "compelling." say what you will about the CD installations but at least they tried to give her a believable persona.

and in the original concept, Lara Cruz was more of a mercenary--who i guess would have liked to hear her wallet rumble.

Whatever concepts that were thought of prior to the game are irrelevant. The actual game facts speak for themselves. One can read between the lines if they want, but that would only be speculation. As brief as the introduction (and Lara herself in the game) was, it answered all of these questions.

And what's unbelievable about Lara's persona in the original game? :confused:

dexter void

16-07-08, 14:32

stereopathic

16-07-08, 14:42

Whatever concepts that were thought of prior to the game are irrelevant. The actual game facts speak for themselves. One can read between the lines if they want, but that would only be speculation. As brief as the introduction (and Lara herself in the game) was, it answered all of these questions.

And what's unbelievable about Lara's persona in the original game? :confused:

details about Lara Cruz are just bits of trivia. of course they're irrelevant. but that doesn't mean they're not interesting.

what's unbelievable is that she's a completely flat character, totally two-dimensional. in fact, the most we learn about Lara in any of the first three games is usually when we're traipsing though the manor. it's the only time we learn anything about who she is as a person. i.e. she likes classical music, tropical fish, power sports and collecting the spoils of her travels but never displays them in an ostentatious way.

not that this detracts from the game at all. the original TR was about the gameplay and atmosphere, not about Lara. her lack of character actually makes it more immersive because it's easier to see yourself as the one in the tombs. whereas in the newer games, it's Lara who reacts to the surroundings, not the player.

but much of her character is typical of entertainment in general in 1996. people were satisfied with Arnold coldly pumping bullets into criminals as long as it was peppered with snappy one-liners. in this way, TR snuggles into the nineties action mold quite nicely.

frodrigues

16-07-08, 18:12

She does it because she likes to do it. She likes history, she likes knowing ancient cultures, and exploring is a big part of them. Artifacts holds important places in history and she interested on it.

It goes for both of her bios. Difference is that she does it know because her father did too. And she doesn't only does it because she wants to find her mother, otherwise she would just be searching for artifacts that can lead to her mom, wich is basically what CD did so far but I hope they will stop that.

Encore

16-07-08, 19:30

I'm sorry but I'll say it: this thread is pathetic.

First of all, rr already posted her background very clear.

Second this is a videogame and the background as was defined at that time, was more than enough.

And third, arguments like this:

I find it hard to believe that Lara does it for sport, because after the events in TR1, I would certainly have my fill of adventure for life.

... are pretty lame. Just think of all these people who do climbing for instance. It's a completely risky thing, they probably will get burns and bruises, 60% chance of dying (or more), just to reach a seemingly impossible to reach summit. Yet they keep doing it for all their lives. Why?

If it wasn't for CD's hollywood B.S. you wouldn't be asking about this.

stereopathic

16-07-08, 19:46

I'm sorry but I'll say it: this thread is pathetic.

aww. that's kinda harsh. the OP accepted rr's response and then went on to ask another legitimate (but ignored :D) question. Lara's backstory is incomplete. for instance, she had this "profound" experience, but what was this experience? did something make her realize the futility of technology and first-world civilization? if so what?

i think there's plenty of non-pathetic discussion available here. :)

Encore

16-07-08, 20:40

The reason I said it's pathetic it's mostly because of this:

Second this is a videogame and the background as was defined at that time, was more than enough.

But I'm also aware I'm part of a minority here (of people who don't care much about Lara's story and more about the actual game).

stereopathic

16-07-08, 21:10

fair enough. :)

Eddie Haskell

17-07-08, 02:40

But I'm also aware I'm part of a minority here (of people who don't care much about Lara's story and more about the actual game).

That's me as well. It's the game, not some meticulously detailed bio that matters. And your point about thrill-seekers everywhere should be well taken by everyone. People all over the world take unnecessary risks for the thrill of it every day. Lara is a thrill-seeker as she makes clear in her response to Natla. That is all that is needed for the game's purpose, in fact even that isn't really needed in order to make a great game.

IceColdLaraCroft

17-07-08, 03:27

I take a cue from the movie

Alex West: "Lara's in it for the glory. I'm in it for the money."

and Eddie Haskell...Greta Garbo cleared up that quote she said "i never said I want to be alone...i said i want to be LEFT alone." ;)

Ward Dragon

17-07-08, 03:38

Dia2blo

17-07-08, 03:47

Eddie Haskell

17-07-08, 04:36

i always thought that the old lara had some deep down real reason for doing this (ala parents story), but masked her feelings because shes too tough to let people in. thats why i actually liked in legend when its only towards the end that she cracks to zip and says "this has always been what its about". whilst obviously this isnt technically true- i doubt she sits in the helicopter and thinks "hmmm i wonder if the dagger of xian will help me find my mother..." i do think that the hunt for her parents is more of a personal excuse for herself, a reason to do what she loves- i mean after all, in her fathers diary, it did say lara was the only one who kept faith in finding vilcabamba, showing her immense interest in archaology and determination to find ancient truths.

If you imagine it that way and it makes you happy, than fine. But the mixing of the two bio's in some profound attempt to mate them is not credible. CD has run a long way from this original bio (rather rapidly I might add), and made drastic changes; some alterations go 180° in fact. So in order to mix them you would have to choose between two separate and alternate "truths" about every aspect of her life and times.

iamlaracroft

17-07-08, 05:22

If you imagine it that way and it makes you happy, than fine. But the mixing of the two bio's in some profound attempt to mate them is not credible. CD has run a long way from this original bio (rather rapidly I might add), and made drastic changes; some alterations go 180° in fact. So in order to mix them you would have to choose between two separate and alternate "truths" about every aspect of her life and times.

excellent. well said.

:tmb:

Tyrannosaurus

17-07-08, 06:36

i always thought that the old lara had some deep down real reason for doing this (ala parents story), but masked her feelings because shes too tough to let people in. There's no reason we can't say this didn't apply to the original Lara, either. I found her more compelling when she didn't say much of anything at all. The fact that she has rejected a comfortable life and marriage in favor of her adventuring life already speaks volumes about her fiercely independent nature. Despite the original bio saying that she has apparently written to fund her lifestyle, the original Lara was not openly introspective or emotional--she defined herself through her actions, and understood herself completely. Each Tomb Raider plot was about its archaeological MacGuffin, of course, but at the same time none of them would have happened at all were it not for Lara. Her actions and lifestyle have shaped the story, and the game (or vice versa, but we're not going to go into that cunundrum).

Lara's past was brought into the old series once to great effect--but that was in TR4. However, neither Lara or Von Croy were motivated to find the truth about themselves (though you can argue that perhaps they found it in the end), but simply to wrest the Amulet of Horus from the other. That mixing of backstory into the central plot worked because it was not only deeper than it admitted (as all good stories are), but because it didn't draw attention away from either the gameplay or the story that was happening in the present.

What people often don't realize is that simplicity is more brilliant than complexity. The new backstory for Lara tries too hard; and ironically it adds less than before.

iamlaracroft

17-07-08, 07:04

There's no reason we can't say this didn't apply to the original Lara, either. I found her more compelling when she didn't say much of anything at all. The fact that she has rejected a comfortable life and marriage in favor of her adventuring life already speaks volumes about her fiercely independent nature. Despite the original bio saying that she has apparently written to fund her lifestyle, the original Lara was not openly introspective or emotional--she defined herself through her actions, and understood herself completely. Each Tomb Raider plot was about its archaeological MacGuffin, of course, but at the same time none of them would have happened at all were it not for Lara. Her actions and lifestyle have shaped the story, and the game (or vice versa, but we're not going to go into that cunundrum).

Lara's past was brought into the old series once to great effect--but that was in TR4. However, neither Lara or Von Croy were motivated to find the truth about themselves (though you can argue that perhaps they found it in the end), but simply to wrest the Amulet of Horus from the other. That mixing of backstory into the central plot worked because it was not only deeper than it admitted (as all good stories are), but because it didn't draw attention away from either the gameplay or the story that was happening in the present.

What people often don't realize is that simplicity is more brilliant than complexity. The new backstory for Lara tries too hard; and ironically it adds less than before.

agreed.
I've pleaded this case before in other threads like "emotional Lara" ad nauseum; the style in which CD employs to tell Lara's story/justify her excursions is simply insulting to the player's intelligence.
It's as if subtlety is too perfunctory to be considered!
Indeed, e v e r y t h i n g must be spelled out, explained, reiterated and compounded--with redundant dialog or gratuitous cutscenes.
Nothing is left for the player to decide, to interpret or contemplate...nothing is left to the imagination.
Less is most definitely more;
"more" only serves to destroy the art of nuance.

Eddie Haskell

17-07-08, 13:35

agreed.
I've pleaded this case before in other threads like "emotional Lara" ad nauseum; the style in which CD employs to tell Lara's story/justify her excursions is simply insulting to the player's intelligence.
It's as if subtlety is too perfunctory to be considered!
Indeed, e v e r y t h i n g must be spelled out, explained, reiterated and compounded--with redundant dialog or gratuitous cutscenes.
Nothing is left for the player to decide, to interpret or contemplate...nothing is left to the imagination.
Less is most definitely more;
"more" only serves to destroy the art of nuance.

Precisely.

My only questions are did CD do extensive research into this topic and come to the conclusion that Lara needed (and in fact required) to be as known to the gamer as one is familiar with a sister? Did they believe (or in fact discover in some form of testing) that the Tomb Raider fans were dissatisfied with this aspect in all of the previous games? If so, who were they talking to? And, does the change in Lara's life story actually make for a better game?

stereopathic

17-07-08, 15:31

Perfectly said, Encore and Eddie Haskell :tmb: Lara invades ancient ruins and steals centuries-old artifacts for the sheer thrill and excitement of the adventure. That is far more 3D and believable to me than yet another cardboard cutout Hollywood orphan who searches for her parents but really just wants to find herself :rolleyes:

i see you say that this is more believable to you, and i can respect that. but there are specific reasons why thrill seekers become thrill seekers. in fact many psychologists see it as a dysfunction. there's layers upon layers behind what is seemingly a simple choice. i'm definitely not saying i like the new lara better, but as far as defining a fictional character is concerned, she is more complete.

What people often don't realize is that simplicity is more brilliant than complexity. The new backstory for Lara tries too hard; and ironically it adds less than before.

this is so true in many environments. especially in the medium of video gaming. subtracting a big chunk of personality from your characters allows the user to either fill in their interpretations or simply enjoy the absence of information. i would say it applies to supporting characters in movies, too. see how fanatical fans of the star wars series became about boba fett or darth maul. they seemed so cool because they were so mysterious. fill in too much information, and they lose their luster.

My only questions are did CD do extensive research into this topic and come to the conclusion that Lara needed (and in fact required) to be as known to the gamer as one is familiar with a sister? Did they believe (or in fact discover in some form of testing) that the Tomb Raider fans were dissatisfied with this aspect in all of the previous games? If so, who were they talking to? And, does the change in Lara's life story actually make for a better game?

you're asking for a lot of speculation here. who knows what goes on behind closed doors at CD? but i can tell you that rich and interesting main characters are a staple of good story-telling. motivations, flaws and contradictions help to develop believable and identifiable characters. this works brilliantly for movies, books, etc.

but no, and i can only speak for myself here, no i do not feel it makes for a better game. unlike those other formats, games are meant to be lived, not watched. you're not an audience; you're a participant. and it's because of this that the original TRs benefit from Lara being 2D. you can easily become the tomb raider.

one note about Legend on this topic: Z&A, especially Zip, represented the audience in the game. it was his reaction that you were supposed to feel--whether it was a "woo-hoo," a "yeah" or a "this might be a good place to use the RAD mode on your binoculars." and this...*sigh*...this was a huge failure on their part. with this change, more than any other, we ceased to be tomb raiding and began sitting back and observing Lara do it. this was nearly unforgivable.

Eddie Haskell

17-07-08, 16:17

you're asking for a lot of speculation here. who knows what goes on behind closed doors at CD? but i can tell you that rich and interesting main characters are a staple of good story-telling. motivations, flaws and contradictions help to develop believable and identifiable characters. this works brilliantly for movies, books, etc.

but no, and i can only speak for myself here, no i do not feel it makes for a better game. unlike those other formats, games are meant to be lived, not watched. you're not an audience; you're a participant. and it's because of this that the original TRs benefit from Lara being 2D. you can easily become the tomb raider.

one note about Legend on this topic: Z&A, especially Zip, represented the audience in the game. it was his reaction that you were supposed to feel--whether it was a "woo-hoo," a "yeah" or a "this might be a good place to use the RAD mode on your binoculars." and this...*sigh*...this was a huge failure on their part. with this change, more than any other, we ceased to be tomb raiding and began sitting back and observing Lara do it. this was nearly unforgivable.

It would be speculation if you or I answered them. But, we have some people who come in here who could take care of that...if they wanted to.

Ward Dragon

17-07-08, 18:23

stereopathic

17-07-08, 18:47

First of all, Toby Gard himself referred to Lara as a "gun-toting psychopath" in an interview back around when TR1 came out (someone had asked him if he based Lara off of someone he knew and he said he didn't know too many gun-toting psychopaths or something to that effect). Lara being crazy makes perfect sense and only adds to the magnetism of her character.

The new Lara is much less complete in my view. Original Lara was a self-contained person who went on adventures because it was fun. New Lara is needy and dependent upon others for self-validation. She doesn't seem like she could actually survive raiding a tomb, let alone surviving the plane crash alone at the age of 9. Her emotions seem forced and exaggerated, which further strengthens the impression that she's a fake character made only for entertainment purposes and she could never be real.

okay, let's say she is crazy for a moment. why is she a psychopath? when did her psychotic break occur? what was it that drove her over the brink? was this "profound" moment that she experienced actually a horrifying event that caused her to sever contact with the life and reality she previously had? and why does this crazy person find raiding tombs fun? is it the ancient mysteries? is it connecting folklore to reality? is it the chance to kill 40, maybe 50, people? what is it that drives her to do it?

these are all unknowns.

however, we know what triggered the new lara into becoming a colossal wuss. we know that she feels guilt for not believing in her dad and extreme loss for her mom. we know what drives her to raid tombs. we know what first converted her into a heartless killer who seemingly enjoys shooting mercs in the back. like her or not, new lara's been fleshed out much better.

and we know why she's so much more detailed as well. there's real writers on the job now, a real budget. the original team of 6 people just can't compete with an army of programmers, designers and middle management who are more than willing to sacrifice pacing and mood to expand the character of lara croft. it's not their fault that lara's not as well-developed but they can take pride in their original game being far more enjoyable than either of CD's efforts, in spite of their disadvantages.

Eddie Haskell

17-07-08, 19:10

okay, let's say she is crazy for a moment. why is she a psychopath? when did her psychotic break occur? what was it that drove her over the brink? was this "profound" moment that she experienced actually a horrifying event that caused her to sever contact with the life and reality she previously had? and why does this crazy person find raiding tombs fun? is it the ancient mysteries? is it connecting folklore to reality? is it the chance to kill 40, maybe 50, people? what is it that drives her to do it?

these are all unknowns.

however, we know what triggered the new lara into becoming a colossal wuss. we know that she feels guilt for not believing in her dad and extreme loss for her mom. we know what drives her to raid tombs. we know what first converted her into a heartless killer who seemingly enjoys shooting mercs in the back. like her or not, new lara's been fleshed out much better.

and we know why she's so much more detailed as well. there's real writers on the job now, a real budget. the original team of 6 people just can't compete with an army of programmers, designers and middle management who are more than willing to sacrifice pacing and mood to expand the character of lara croft. it's not their fault that lara's not as well-developed but they can take pride in their original game being far more enjoyable than either of CD's efforts, in spite of their disadvantages.

I agree with everything in your post. And yes, kudos to the original team for creating such a fabulous game and character using stone knives and bear skins...:)

Ward Dragon

17-07-08, 19:16

Tyrannosaurus

17-07-08, 19:19

i see you say that this is more believable to you, and i can respect that. but there are specific reasons why thrill seekers become thrill seekers. in fact many psychologists see it as a dysfunction. there's layers upon layers behind what is seemingly a simple choice. i'm definitely not saying i like the new lara better, but as far as defining a fictional character is concerned, she is more complete. There can be little doubt that the original Lara isn't completely "functional" either, but this is something we can infer simply by who she is and what she does. It was never made explicit in any of the games, nor did it need to be.

Typically, if an author exaggerates a character's past or present trauma in order to explain his or her behavior and motivations or gain sympathy from the audience (i.e. surviving a plane crash at 9 instead of 21, both parents dead instead of neither), it is a sign of amateurism. More experienced writers usually have the confidence to trust that their characters are intrinsically interesting and their audiences are intelligent and attentive. They also know that characters are developed in so many other ways as well, and most importantly through their actions.

To make this point, let me introduce a new backstory that I'm certain everyone here will find repugnant and completely unnecessary. Suppose CD decided that Lara needed to be "darker, grittier, edgier, and more adult", and hired the worst possible team of writers to construct a story for the next TR game. Suppose this group of writers comes up with a backstory that Lara was raped in the past, and decided that she carries guns and adventures in a "man's world" in order to prove/avenge herself and retrieve what she has lost (if you view descending into the depths of the Earth and pillaging its secrets as a sexual metaphor, then Lara's real tragedy is that she is now perpetuating and reliving the trauma she went through years ago in her attempts to face it). And suppose the game was filled with cutscenes and flashbacks that focused on Lara's post-traumatic stress and other issues like that.

Would this add depth to Lara and explain more about her, or would this completely suck? And more importantly, would it add anything to the game at all? Would this new Lara be more developed than her predecessors, or would she be a different character?

you're asking for a lot of speculation here. who knows what goes on behind closed doors at CD? but i can tell you that rich and interesting main characters are a staple of good story-telling. motivations, flaws and contradictions help to develop believable and identifiable characters. this works brilliantly for movies, books, etc.

but no, and i can only speak for myself here, no i do not feel it makes for a better game. unlike those other formats, games are meant to be lived, not watched. you're not an audience; you're a participant. and it's because of this that the original TRs benefit from Lara being 2D. you can easily become the tomb raider.

one note about Legend on this topic: Z&A, especially Zip, represented the audience in the game. it was his reaction that you were supposed to feel--whether it was a "woo-hoo," a "yeah" or a "this might be a good place to use the RAD mode on your binoculars." and this...*sigh*...this was a huge failure on their part. with this change, more than any other, we ceased to be tomb raiding and began sitting back and observing Lara do it. this was nearly unforgivable. I may be wrong, but I believe Eidos' motives were far more cynical, and that they merely wanted to tie the TR games in with the movies, so as to not miss an opportunity to do well with either. The poor box office performance of the second TR film is one of the reasons Lara was plucked from the hands of Core to begin with.

Suzan

18-07-08, 11:51

The new Lara is much less complete in my view. Original Lara was a self-contained person who went on adventures because it was fun. New Lara is needy and dependent upon others for self-validation. She doesn't seem like she could actually survive raiding a tomb, let alone surviving the plane crash alone at the age of 9. Her emotions seem forced and exaggerated, which further strengthens the impression that she's a fake character made only for entertainment purposes and she could never be real.

Couldn't say it better myself. I just simply cannot imagine the new Lara raiding tombs _alone_, doing it for the fun of it, enjoying the things she sees and experiences with her every breath, without some Zips or other guys commenting something random every two minutes. I miss that stronger and more real (yup, more real, believe it or not) Lara, the new exaggerated emotions don't suit her and that's why she doesnt feel like the real Lara to me that much anymore. THE game has almost changed into a movie.. a movie with cool special effects and more detailed and sensitive characters. But that's not TR to me. Now it's always about the parents, blabla. It is NOT about the parents, for god's sake. It's about her. Her life, her thrill and her excitement. And her parents are not in her life anymore. I mean, they weren't.. now they are again, meh, better get outta here before I'm too complicated for anyone's good >

Nannonxyay

18-07-08, 14:00

I don't understand why people complain about the story, when they can easily just skip the cut scenes and just play the game.

Azerutan

18-07-08, 14:11

Again, people forget Lara is just a character and Tomb Raider is just game...

Plus, it's funny people consider TR1 Lara more real than Anniversary Larajust because this last one is "emotional"... LOL Is there even someone out there like Lara from TR1? She doesn't even blink! :) XD Seriously, I mean, SERIOUSLY...

Suzan

18-07-08, 14:57

Again, people forget Lara is just a character and Tomb Raider is just game...
Lol, exactly. I never think about TR only as a 'game', or Lara as a plain 'character'.

Plus, it's funny people consider TR1 Lara more real than Anniversary Larajust because this last one is "emotional"... LOL Is there even someone out there like Lara from TR1? She doesn't even blink! :) XD Seriously, I mean, SERIOUSLY...

yup, yup I do. Yes, the Legend Lara is more human-like, not many people are like the original Lara.. but the TR1 Lara is more LARA. and the new emotions just don't suit 'the Lara' imo. so it doesnt feel real -> feels fake.

@Nannonxyay: everything in TR matters. also the story. and especially Lara.

Nannonxyay

18-07-08, 15:17

@Nannonxyay: everything in TR matters. also the story. and especially Lara.

I care about the story and I know it matters. It's just if somebody doesn't like it then they can easily just skip it and stop complaining.

Azerutan

18-07-08, 15:18

Yeah, I know what you mean :)

Suzan

18-07-08, 18:30

It would be easy (for me to do that) if it was any other game than TR. I don't care about other games that much.

stereopathic

18-07-08, 19:09

i just want to say that complaining and critiquing are two very different things. in case i haven't been clear, i love all the TRs, and i even had fun playing Legend. but that doesn't mean that they were perfect games.

I agree with everything in your post. And yes, kudos to the original team for creating such a fabulous game and character using stone knives and bear skins...:)

they were heroes. :D it breaks my heart when people rag on Toby Gard in the TRU forum. he really was integral to the feel of the game and the feel of Lara (not in a perverted way). :P

Typically, if an author exaggerates a character's past or present trauma in order to explain his or her behavior and motivations or gain sympathy from the audience (i.e. surviving a plane crash at 9 instead of 21, both parents dead instead of neither), it is a sign of amateurism. More experienced writers usually have the confidence to trust that their characters are intrinsically interesting and their audiences are intelligent and attentive. They also know that characters are developed in so many other ways as well, and most importantly through their actions.

yeah i thought the writing was extremely flawed in parts. one of the main issues i had with TRA was that lara should have died more than a few times. larson saved her, kid saved her, heck, you could even make the case that the centaurs saved her. i definitely have always associated lara with the idea of a strong, capable woman, but the writers seemed to have missed the boat on that one.

the overabundance of dialogue in TRL did feel amateurish. it could have been trimmed dramatically and the story wouldn't have suffered at all. they should have worked on developing lara through action, and more specifically choices, instead of falling back on an endless stream of empty banter.

To make this point, let me introduce a new backstory that I'm certain everyone here will find repugnant and completely unnecessary. Suppose CD decided that Lara needed to be "darker, grittier, edgier, and more adult", and hired the worst possible team of writers to construct a story for the next TR game. Suppose this group of writers comes up with a backstory that Lara was raped in the past, and decided that she carries guns and adventures in a "man's world" in order to prove/avenge herself and retrieve what she has lost (if you view descending into the depths of the Earth and pillaging its secrets as a sexual metaphor, then Lara's real tragedy is that she is now perpetuating and reliving the trauma she went through years ago in her attempts to face it). And suppose the game was filled with cutscenes and flashbacks that focused on Lara's post-traumatic stress and other issues like that.

Would this add depth to Lara and explain more about her, or would this completely suck? And more importantly, would it add anything to the game at all? Would this new Lara be more developed than her predecessors, or would she be a different character?

great stuff, T-Rex! :tmb:

add depth? sure. explain more? possibly. suck? absolutely. :D

i think a mistake that most game makers are committing right now is turning their products into little interactive movies. i believe Suzan said something similar in an above post. the problem with this is that they aren't movies. they're games, and as such should utilize a completely different type of story writing. something very much along the lines of TR1: here's your character, here's the story (keep it simple) and...GO!

the biggest successes i've seen in VG story-telling have been Ico and Shadow of the Colossus. the stories are just bare bones, as are the characters. you know only what you need to know to play the game. everything else is left up to interpretation. and this is flipping brilliant! it forces you to become the main character, reinforces the player as participant, not audience. the result is a powerful emotional connection--something i think TR1 has over TRL in spades.

i remember not being able to watch lara drown when i first played the game and feeling horrible when lara impaled herself on spikes. when legend lara drowns, me = meh. i don't have enough invested in the story to really care one way or the other.

Ward Dragon

18-07-08, 20:03

^ Yes, exactly :D Very well said, stereopathic. My biggest gripe with the new Legend/TRA story isn't even her parents or *that* she has emotions, but rather how the actual story is told in such a way to turn the game into a movie and eliminate any chance of me becoming the main character as I usually do in most videogames I play.

stereopathic

18-07-08, 20:48

thanks, Ward. :) i think it's my biggest gripe as well.

Suzan

19-07-08, 14:49

you know only what you need to know to play the game. everything else is left up to interpretation. and this is flipping brilliant! it forces you to become the main character, reinforces the player as participant, not audience. the result is a powerful emotional connection--something i think TR1 has over TRL in spades.

Exactly, exactly, I agree 100% but I simply cannot express myself well enough. But here it is LOL thank you :D In Legend I did not feel I was alone in a tomb/temple/what-ever-the-f, I did not feel any of the great atmosphere that TR1 has, I did not FEEL the game strongly. I felt like I was more of an audience, not the adventurer itself. Just like you said. I don't wanna know everything about Lara's past or parents or any of that b.s - I love the way I do 'know' Lara in those original games, but in fact I don't know even half of her. How they show just a little bit of her personality - her music choices in the manor, the secret rooms... It was so great.

Eddie Haskell

19-07-08, 16:44

Exactly, exactly, I agree 100% but I simply cannot express myself well enough. But here it is LOL thank you :D In Legend I did not feel I was alone in a tomb/temple/what-ever-the-f, I did not feel any of the great atmosphere that TR1 has, I did not FEEL the game strongly. I felt like I was more of an audience, not the adventurer itself. Just like you said. I don't wanna know everything about Lara's past or parents or any of that b.s - I love the way I do 'know' Lara in those original games, but in fact I don't know even half of her. How they show just a little bit of her personality - her music choices in the manor, the secret rooms... It was so great.

I have proclaimed this as a mantra from the moment I arrived in this forum. In the CORE games, who Lara was in detail was more or less left open to interpretation, and when one was playing the game it was the game itself and your personal experience as the gamer that was the most important. Now it is basically a complex interactive dvd, as far as the heavily controlled storyline and it's importance to every move. This is why they have so many non-interactive (and I count the IC's in this as they are heavily controlled) moments in the game, to steer you and control your experience to the letter. You are not Lara (or at least you have not been up 'til now), you are watching and moving someone else, and bearing witness to the results of their actions. You can blame the Hollywood influence for this, and the attempt to meld both worlds (gaming and movies) into the experience. I don't like it at all, I want to be the character and make it my own, not operate a heavily game-controlled automaton (albeit with forced human emotion). Again, they are really creating a complex interactive DVD.

Endow

19-07-08, 17:57

I have proclaimed this as a mantra from the moment I arrived in this forum. In the CORE games, who Lara was in detail was more or less left open to interpretation, and when one was playing the game it was the game itself and your personal experience as the gamer that was the most important. Now it is basically a complex interactive dvd, as far as the heavily controlled storyline and it's importance to every move. This is why they have so many non-interactive (and I count the IC's in this as they are heavily controlled) moments in the game, to steer you and control your experience to the letter. You are not Lara (or at least you have not been up 'til now), you are watching and moving someone else, and bearing witness to the results of their actions. You can blame the Hollywood influence for this, and the attempt to meld both worlds (gaming and movies) into the experience. I don't like it at all, I want to be the character and make it my own, not operate a heavily game-controlled automaton (albeit with forced human emotion). Again, they are really creating a complex interactive DVD.

Your argument can be applied to any game that takes story even remotely seriously. I can understand complaints about the gameplay (I want better gameplay myself) but as far as story goes it kinda amazes me to see so much fuss about it, when it really never was about the story in TRs case, for most people. I mean, I don't recall people complaining about AoD's story or the importance it had, or how immutable it was. Same for TR4. At the end of the day cutscenes are skip-able and ICs don't take up that much air time.

So I completely understand the complaints about how the gameplay is very very different (even though in a TR game I'll chose raiding tombs in a not-so-nonlinear way over nonlinear exploration where the context doesn't matter much any day) but no so much the story complaints. Simple or complex, story must make sense for it not to be bothersome or get in the way. I think that much has been achieved in the past two games.

Eddie Haskell

19-07-08, 18:20

Your argument can be applied to any game that takes story even remotely seriously. I can understand complaints about the gameplay (I want better gameplay myself) but as far as story goes it kinda amazes me to see so much fuss about it, when it really never was about the story in TRs case, for most people. I mean, I don't recall people complaining about AoD's story or the importance it had, or how immutable it was. Same for TR4. At the end of the day cutscenes are skip-able and ICs don't take up that much air time.

So I completely understand the complaints about how the gameplay is very very different (even though in a TR game I'll chose raiding tombs in a not-so-nonlinear way over nonlinear exploration where the context doesn't matter much any day) but no so much the story complaints. Simple or complex, story must make sense for it not to be bothersome or get in the way. I think that much has been achieved in the past two games.

You are missing my point. I don't care what the story is. It is the designers philosophy at this time to make the storytelling the bulk of the game at the expense of all else. Just drop me in a location and allow me to figure it out, and let me fight any enemies my own way, not suffocate me with an overbearing and in my face director. In the end and in order to win the game, one must meet the objectives anyway. The Hollywood influence is killing many games for me, except for much of the so-called western RPG games.

na_th_an

19-07-08, 18:27

While I agree with you mostly, I don't think it's something to praise Core about. Back in the day, story in an action game simply didn't matter. It wasn't done on purpose, I mean. If you take a glance at the classics, each game introduced more and more narrative elements to guide the action and shaped up Lara a bit more. It's not Crystal's Dynamics fault to have turned the games in a sort of movie, it's just something that's come with the developing of videogames along these 12 years.

Just compare the storytelling and plot existent in Doom 2 (1994) and Doom 3 (2004), or Quake (1996) and Quake IV (2005). Same thing. It's just how videogames have evolved. People should prefer it that way, 'cause this evolution is only carried by how a concept sells.

Anyway, I don't care about that at all, as long as the game is fun to play.

Eddie Haskell

19-07-08, 18:34

While I agree with you mostly, I don't think it's something to praise Core about. Back in the day, story in an action game simply didn't matter. It wasn't done on purpose, I mean. If you take a glance at the classics, each game introduced more and more narrative elements and shaped up Lara a bit more. It's not Crystal's Dynamics fault to have turned the games in a sort of movie, it's just something that's come with the developing of videogames along these 12 years.

That does not mean that everyone has to follow the same path. And I don't buy it that it was/is inevitable that this type of development occurred or will continue. These type of games have little replay value since your individual input is extremely limited. That's why the so-called western RPG's hold such a sway in this regard, the player puts his own stamp on it, each and every time he plays it again. If Tomb Raider gave the player all sorts of choices in the game that would individualize ones experience than this would go a long way towards satisfying the particular crowd that wants the avatar to represent themselves.

na_th_an

19-07-08, 19:02

"The particular crowd" is the problem. The bad thing is that companies try to focus on "the biggest crowd possible".

Endow

19-07-08, 19:05

You are missing my point. I don't care what the story is. It is the designers philosophy at this time to make the storytelling the bulk of the game at the expense of all else. Just drop me in a location and allow me to figure it out, and let me fight any enemies my own way, not suffocate me with an overbearing and in my face director. In the end and in order to win the game, one must meet the objectives anyway. The Hollywood influence is killing many games for me, except for much of the so-called western RPG games.

You are exaggerating, in my opinion. Like na_th_an pointed out, it's the natural evolution of the industry to make story more important. But saying Legend/Anniversary was all about the story is simply not fair. The games' stories weren't that fleshed out.

And you are talking as if, mid-gameplay the story was somehow a hindrance. The story is very much separated from all things gameplay (IC being an exception at times). I don't see how someone can't simply play Sanctuary of the Scion in TRA and have a good time with it, with nothing else on their mind (just an example).

As for the joy of non-linear experiences/stories versus linear ones - to each their own, but the bulk of games in the industry has always had a very prominent linear aspect to both the story and the gameplay. In fact, I can't say I ever thought of TR1 has a non-linear game - the story was completely immutable and you had to complete most tasks in a linear fashion (save for getting key B before getting key A).

(doesn't matter much but I love western RPGs myself btw, I just think that the joy of playing one is just as easy to understand as that of someone playing ICO, for instances)

I seriously don't see how Legend or Anniversary are that much different in that regard. The levels are small in comparison to earlier games, but that's it.

Suzan

19-07-08, 19:15

I seriously don't see how Legend or Anniversary are that much different in that regard. The levels are small in comparison to earlier games, but that's it.

I'm in a hurry so I'll only throw my two cents on this part here for now: I think that Legend was different in SO many ways, not just the shorter levels. Legend felt _so_ much different to me than the 'classic TRs'. The levels were shorter yes and the game was easier, but that totally wasn't the biggest disappointment in Legend, not at all. Exactly like has been said before, the whole way the game was represented and designed, it was different in so many ways. In Legend we didn't have the loneliness because Lara had her friends throwing some random comments at her every two minutes. I wasnt scared/excited/overwhelmed at ANY point in Legend: in TR1, which i've played many times, everytime I admire all the excellent level design and all the old stuff I admired the first time playing it. Shoot, gotta go, I'll be back to edit my post later, I really am in a hurry now, but "I'll be back"!

edit-
right, here I am again. Soooo my second point is: Lara's motives to do tomb raiding have totally changed. And it bugs me how she walks in her father's footsteps nowadays... because what I reallyreally loved about Lara is that she is a loner. A lonely wolf who doesn't really care about what her parents think, or what anybody thinks. She did what she did because she enjoyed it and tomb raiding was the main thing to HER - in Anniversary, I almost cried when she said 'I'm sorry father...'. I mean, c'mon! That's not what Lara is. She isnt heartless, but her parents aren't the main thing to her. not at all. It feels to me as if Lara's personality has changed way too much... and because Lara is one of the MAIN things in TR to me, I feel so sad and angry about the changes. Meh... I'm not in the best condition to be explaining this right now so maybe I'll be back later, lolol.

Eddie Haskell

19-07-08, 19:18

You are exaggerating, in my opinion. Like na_th_an pointed out, it's the natural evolution of the industry to make story more important. But saying Legend/Anniversary was all about the story is simply not fair. The games' stories weren't that fleshed out.

And you are talking as if, mid-gameplay the story was somehow a hindrance. The story is very much separated from all things gameplay (IC being an exception at times). I don't see how someone can't simply play Sanctuary of the Scion in TRA and have a good time with it, with nothing else on their mind (just an example).

As for the joy of non-linear experiences/stories versus linear ones - to each their own, but the bulk of games in the industry has always had a very prominent linear aspect to both the story and the gameplay. In fact, I can't say I ever thought of TR1 has a non-linear game - the story was completely immutable and you had to complete most tasks in a linear fashion (save for getting key B before getting key A).

(doesn't matter much but I love western RPGs myself btw)

I seriously don't see how Legend or Anniversary are that much different in that regard. The levels are small in comparison to earlier games, but that's it.

It is not the natural evolution but a natural evolution. Big difference. Unless you can prove to me that somehow it is the only way to make a successful game in 2008. I don't believe it for one minute.

And I agree with you about TR1, it certainly was linear in story, as ALL games are and must be, save for some RPG's that warn you when you kill a character vital to the plots conclusion. But my only argument is in the details. How do you play and finish the game? Is everything laid out for you like reading a novel? Are the fights so heavily choreographed that one must use a single (perhaps a silly, convoluted and contrived) method to destroy ones adversary? Do IC's kick in and take even this method away? This is the kind of things I am speaking to, that everything is micromanaged from the single ledge on must hit each time, to the forced use of gimmicky "moves" in order to dispatch an enemy, etc.

In 2008 the gaming industry has the horsepower, numbers of gamers and a multitude of possibilities that did not exist before. To say that the entire industry is pigeonholed into a single mindset of "storytelling" is preposterous.

Endow

19-07-08, 19:54

Suzan : I understand how Legend was a disappointment for a lot of people. Hey, Legend wasn't a good TR game in my opinion, either. It was not the worse, but it was definitely not a good TR game. But that's not my point. I'm talking about how story and linearity in particular.

It is not the natural evolution but a natural evolution. Big difference. Unless you can prove to me that somehow it is the only way to make a successful game in 2008. I don't believe it for one minute.

And I agree with you about TR1, it certainly was linear in story, as ALL games are and must be, save for some RPG's that warn you when you kill a character vital to the plots conclusion. But my only argument is in the details. How do you play and finish the game? Is everything laid out for you like reading a novel? Are the fights so heavily choreographed that one must use a single (perhaps a silly, convoluted and contrived) method to destroy ones adversary? Do IC's kick in and take even this method away? This is the kind of things I am speaking to, that everything is micromanaged from the single ledge on must hit each time, to the forced use of gimmicky "moves" in order to dispatch an enemy, etc.

In 2008 the gaming industry has the horsepower, numbers of gamers and a multitude of possibilities that did not exist before. To say that the entire industry is pigeonholed into a single mindset of "storytelling" is preposterous.

By natural I meant "to be expected". When motion pictures first appeared they were little more than thrill rides (no, there is nothing wrong with thrill rides; they can suffice on their own) and eventually fleshed out the actual storyline into what we have today. I like to see videogames as an art form, and every art form tells a story in one way or another. So giving more importance to the actual context of actions (etc) seems like a natural evolution.

I don't know what you mean by "pigeonholed" (if it should be, or if it is) but the variety of types of games out there is a testament to how it's not a reality, at least not on an absolute scale. But it's an undeniable trend.

I don't understand what you mean by "single ledge on must hit each time" (could you please clarify?), but as far as combat goes I both agree and disagree. I agree that it's a bad design choice (not to have an option) but the known alternative isn't any less restrictive in that there is really only one way to finish the fights (pumping lead until the end). But I don't see it as something that completely changes the overall experience. Ultimately that's my point here. I don't deny TRA is far from perfect and far from being as great as TR1. But to think it's fundamentally completely flawed is not something I can agree with.

Eddie Haskell

19-07-08, 20:06

Suzan : I understand how Legend was a disappointment for a lot of people. Hey, Legend wasn't a good TR game in my opinion, either. It was not the worse, but it was definitely not a good TR game. But that's not my point. I'm talking about how story and linearity in particular.

By natural I meant "to be expected". When motion pictures first appeared they were little more than thrill rides (no, there is nothing wrong with thrill rides; they can suffice on their own) and eventually fleshed out the actual storyline into what we have today. I like to see videogames as an art form, and every art form tells a story in one way or another. So giving more importance to the actual context of actions (etc) seems like a natural evolution.

I don't know what you mean by "pigeonholed" (if it should be, or if it is) but the variety of types of games out there is a testament to how it's not a reality, at least not on an absolute scale. But it's an undeniable trend.

I don't understand what you mean by "single ledge on must hit each time" (could you please clarify?), but as far as combat goes I both agree and disagree. I agree that it's a bad design choice (not to have an option) but the known alternative isn't any less restrictive in that there is really only one way to finish the fights (pumping lead until the end). But I don't see it as something that completely changes the overall experience. Ultimately that's my point here. I don't deny TRA is far from perfect and far from being as great as TR1. But to think it's fundamentally completely flawed is not something I can agree with.

Anniversary is no more flawed than a lot of other comparable games. But Tomb Raider is not just a run-of-mill game that should go along with the trends.

And your description of "pumping lead until the end" is not an end all in my book. How do you pump that lead? Along with this method (and with the gunfire method there should be a multitude of possibilities, strategies and places to accomplish this in that environment) perhaps one could lead or force the enemy off a cliff, cause a landslide, poison him with something homemade found in your travels, construct some type of explosives with locally gathered materials, beat him to death with a shovel, etc.

The single ledge phrase is metaphorical for the singular strategy that must be employed in everything, sans a bug that allows you to bypass these restraints. If they made a true to life, scalable environment with Lara as a superb, stupendously gifted athlete able to climb/run/swim/jump better than 99% of the rest of humankind they could allow the player the freedom to choose their route to the chokepoint. Another way to individualize the game to the benefit of multiple replay value.

Ward Dragon

19-07-08, 20:11

I understand how Legend was a disappointment for a lot of people. Hey, Legend wasn't a good TR game in my opinion, either. It was not the worse, but it was definitely not a good TR game. But that's not my point. I'm talking about how story and linearity in particular.

Legend is a prime example of how the story got in the way of the gameplay. Assuming someone didn't know to turn the voice volume off the first time through the game (or was afraid of actually missing something important relating to the story) the gameplay was constantly interrupted by annoying and distracting headset chatter which ruined the isolation and immersion. In addition, there were around two hours of cutscenes in a game that took me only 8 hours total to win (not counting the manor) so it was a ridiculously high proportion of cutscenes versus gameplay. Assuming someone turned off the voice volume and didn't care about the story at all so skipped all of the cutscenes, there were still a lot of mandatory unskippable cutscenes like the IC's or showing off the route in a new room.

When motion pictures first appeared they were little more than thrill rides (no, there is nothing wrong with thrill rides; they can suffice on their own) and eventually fleshed out the actual storyline into what we have today.

I think you have that backwards. Most of the older movies had really deep and intelligent stories, whereas nowadays most of the crap that comes out has a ton of special effects but no real substance.

I don't understand what you mean by "single ledge on must hit each time" (could you please clarify?), but as far as combat goes I both agree and disagree.

I think he means how the linearity of the level is blatantly obvious and there's no attempt to hide it (the classics may have been linear too, but they masked it much better). In Legend and TRA, there's pretty much only one way to go and you can't get from one place to another multiple times without performing nearly the exact same sequence of ledge-hopping. It feels much more restrictive than simply jumping across gaps because each time you jump you might have aimed slightly differently, not sure if you're going to make it, etc. whereas with the ledges Lara automatically grabs it and then when she gets to the end and jumps off she can only go in one direction anyway so it's the same every time.

Eddie Haskell

19-07-08, 20:15

I think he means how the linearity of the level is blatantly obvious and there's no attempt to hide it (the classics may have been linear too, but they masked it much better). In Legend and TRA, there's pretty much only one way to go and you can't get from one place to another multiple times without performing nearly the exact same sequence of ledge-hopping. It feels much more restrictive than simply jumping across gaps because each time you jump you might have aimed slightly differently, not sure if you're going to make it, etc. whereas with the ledges Lara automatically grabs it and then when she gets to the end and jumps off she can only go in one direction anyway so it's the same every time.

Yes, in the original you could actually find multiple routes (some would cause damage to you) to get from point A to your eventual end point B. And yes, one could land in the middle of platform, miss time your jump and overshoot it, or fall short and have to hit action to grab before you plummeted to your death.

Gregori

19-07-08, 20:17

JAYZUS CRIIIIST........

She does it for the same reason we like to play through the levels maybe?

Honestly, needing some contrived sappy reason (and cliched I might add) is about the most 2D reason to do anything. The sheer pleasure of exploring, findings things no one has ever seen before is pretty damn exciting. Columbus didn't sail across the Atlantic Ocean to save his parents. Archaeologists and Paleontologist don't need contrived reason either, they do it because they're interested.

I can guarantee you there is not one person on these forums that is as square as the new Lara!

Some people have said that she is more "Human". I think thats bull**** - mostly produced by hollywood. Being human isn't all about being friends, holding hands, having noble intentions and rational goals. Real people are much more flawed than that. Humans aren't always primarily altruistic. Some of us quite frankly hate our parents! Some of us have cheated on our wives/husbands/girlfriends/boyfriends and didn't feel a bit bad!! (until they got caught :D) Some of use are kleptomaniacs, total perverts, selfish, loud, manipulative, egomaniacs, narcissists, posers, cowards, shy, racists..... Its a whole spectrum, not the goody goody two shoes version that we would like everyone else to believe about us.

I'm a painter and make sculptures.... I don't do either to save the world, the whales or find out the secret mystery of my lost parents :D
There aren't rational reason to explain why I do it other than I like it. I'm just drawn to it!

If Indiana Jones didn't need such sappy reasons for adventuring and searching after artefacts, neither does Lara.

Suzan

19-07-08, 20:43

Yes, in the original you could actually find multiple routes (some would cause damage to you) to get from point A to your eventual end point B. And yes, one could land in the middle of platform, miss time your jump and overshoot it, or fall short and have to hit action to grab before you plummeted to your death.

Yup, yup. I miss the complicated levels where you had like 3 or 4 different routes to go and you had to choose yourself; where will I go next..? And if you messed up, you had to take an old save from the archives. In Legend you pretty much always had only one way to go, so you couldn't mess up. That sucks, I want the levels to be much more complicated than that. I really wish that Underworld will be more like the old TRs.

Endow

19-07-08, 21:26

Anniversary is no more flawed than a lot of other comparable games. But Tomb Raider is not just a run-of-mill game that should go along with the trends.

And your description of "pumping lead until the end" is not an end all in my book. How do you pump that lead? Along with this method (and with the gunfire method there should be a multitude of possibilities, strategies and places to accomplish this in that environment) perhaps one could lead or force the enemy off a cliff, cause a landslide, poison him with something homemade found in your travels, construct some type of explosives with locally gathered materials, beat him to death with a shovel, etc.

The single ledge phrase is metaphorical for the singular strategy that must be employed in everything, sans a bug that allows you to bypass these restraints. If they made a true to life, scalable environment with Lara as a superb, stupendously gifted athlete able to climb/run/swim/jump better than 99% of the rest of humankind they could allow the player the freedom to choose their route to the chokepoint. Another way to individualize the game to the benefit of multiple replay value.

Yes, bigger environments and more routes would be welcome, but apart from that, most restraints (the linearity of the experience) were pretty much present in all TR games. So I can understand the criticism from a "striving to achieve perfection" (the best game possible) perspective, but not so much from a "new games VS old games" perspective. Single strategies have always been there I'm afraid.

Because although I agree you with in how cool the combat options you describe could be, I still think older games deserve as much criticism in that regard (if not more) than recent games. The combat didn't evolve at all in the first 5 iterations of the game. Neither Legend's nor Anniversary's was a step in the right direction (other than stuff like the final boss fight in TRA which I liked) but they didn't give you any less options. In fact, if you missed the AD's (on purpose or otherwise) you could eventually kill most enemies by normally firing bullets at them. In that sense you had more options than the previous method :P

Legend is a prime example of how the story got in the way of the gameplay. Assuming someone didn't know to turn the voice volume off the first time through the game (or was afraid of actually missing something important relating to the story) the gameplay was constantly interrupted by annoying and distracting headset chatter which ruined the isolation and immersion. In addition, there were around two hours of cutscenes in a game that took me only 8 hours total to win (not counting the manor) so it was a ridiculously high proportion of cutscenes versus gameplay. Assuming someone turned off the voice volume and didn't care about the story at all so skipped all of the cutscenes, there were still a lot of mandatory unskippable cutscenes like the IC's or showing off the route in a new room.

Yes, I actually had forgotten about it, but the headset did get in the way. It was probably the worst design choice by Crystal. But I can't agree with the cutscenes. I mean, I agree that gameplay should take up most of the time by far, but I say the solution should be making more gameplay and not necessarily cutting on the story.

I think you have that backwards. Most of the older movies had really deep and intelligent stories, whereas nowadays most of the crap that comes out has a ton of special effects but no real substance.

I'm talking about really old movies here. When it was all a new and people would literally sit in a theater watching trains moving and animals in the wild. People went for what the novelty of the technology offered, it was different from anything else. They were happy with seeing stuff move and nothing more. Just like when Pong (and the like) came along and people were fascinated with the most basic form of interactivity (the novelty).

I think he means how the linearity of the level is blatantly obvious and there's no attempt to hide it (the classics may have been linear too, but they masked it much better). In Legend and TRA, there's pretty much only one way to go and you can't get from one place to another multiple times without performing nearly the exact same sequence of ledge-hopping. It feels much more restrictive than simply jumping across gaps because each time you jump you might have aimed slightly differently, not sure if you're going to make it, etc. whereas with the ledges Lara automatically grabs it and then when she gets to the end and jumps off she can only go in one direction anyway so it's the same every time.

Hmmm...Legend was very very limiting, but Anniversary was completely different. But yes, leveldesign-wise there is still work to do. But I am optimistic about it. I don't expect complete satisfaction (or maybe I do since my expectations have changed quite a bit a long time ago (i.e. before Legend :p)) but I do expect a lot of improvements in that regard.

Ward Dragon

19-07-08, 21:38

Yes, I actually had forgotten about it, but the headset did get in the way. It was probably the worst design choice by Crystal. But I can't agree with the cutscenes. I mean, I agree that gameplay should take up most of the time by far, but I say the solution should be making more gameplay and not necessarily cutting on the story.

Normally I'd agree with you, but the vast majority of the cutscenes in Legend were superfluous or unnecessarily wordy. If they had significantly cut down the number of cutscenes overall, but had actually written good cutscenes for the ones they kept, it would have been much better. For example, there is a cutscene devoted to explaining why the PDA doesn't short out in water, but they decided not to include the cutscene which actually explains that Lara did in fact leave the Peruvian ruins as a memorial at Anaya's insistence. I think showing for a fact that Lara isn't a disingenuous liar is more important to the story than explaining a gameplay mechanic like swimming with the PDA.

I'm talking about really old movies here. When it was all a new and people would literally sit in a theater watching trains moving and animals in the wild. People went for what the novelty of the technology offered, it was different from anything else. They were happy with seeing stuff move and nothing more. Just like when Pong (and the like) came along and people were fascinated with the most basic form of interactivity (the novelty).

Ah, well then allow me to extend the metaphor. A lot of the classic black and white or early color movies focused on telling a good story with what limited equipment they had available, much like classic TR focused on making a good game with what they had. Now, a lot of the recent movies are all flash and no substance because they are banking on amazing the audiences with all of their spectacular special effects. Similarly, a lot of recent games are focusing on insane graphics but the game itself is ridiculously easy, can be beaten in an afternoon, and forgotten just as quickly.

Hmmm...Legend was very very limiting, but Anniversary was completely different. But yes, leveldesign-wise there is still work to do. But I am optimistic about it. I don't expect complete satisfaction (or maybe I do since my expectations have changed quite a bit a long time ago (i.e. before Legend :p)) but I do expect a lot of improvements in that regard.

Anniversary was less limiting than Legend, but it still didn't do as good of a job at hiding the linearity compared to the classics, and indeed it was more linear than TR1 (look at Palace Midas or the Cistern for an example of the much simplified level design).

iamlaracroft

19-07-08, 23:51

Endow

20-07-08, 00:41

Normally I'd agree with you, but the vast majority of the cutscenes in Legend were superfluous or unnecessarily wordy. If they had significantly cut down the number of cutscenes overall, but had actually written good cutscenes for the ones they kept, it would have been much better. For example, there is a cutscene devoted to explaining why the PDA doesn't short out in water, but they decided not to include the cutscene which actually explains that Lara did in fact leave the Peruvian ruins as a memorial at Anaya's insistence. I think showing for a fact that Lara isn't a disingenuous liar is more important to the story than explaining a gameplay mechanic like swimming with the PDA.

Didn't Lara tell Amanda "we thought of it as a memorial" I don't get the liar part:confused:

Ah, well then allow me to extend the metaphor. A lot of the classic black and white or early color movies focused on telling a good story with what limited equipment they had available, much like classic TR focused on making a good game with what they had. Now, a lot of the recent movies are all flash and no substance because they are banking on amazing the audiences with all of their spectacular special effects. Similarly, a lot of recent games are focusing on insane graphics but the game itself is ridiculously easy, can be beaten in an afternoon, and forgotten just as quickly.

I don't agree, on either account actually. The mainstream on both industries can have it's popcornishly shallow products but the bigger the variety, the bigger the chance to find quality somewhere. 15 years ago, we didn't have games like ICO or Portal or LoK etc. Most games had no story depth. Now some do. It's an improvement. With movies I think realism has really evolved a lot. Theatricality (in a somewhat literal sense) gave way to gritty reality. The sheer genre x budget variety witnessed nowadays is too great. You might have to search past the summer blockbusters to find real quality, but it's there - and in big number.

Anniversary was less limiting than Legend, but it still didn't do as good of a job at hiding the linearity compared to the classics, and indeed it was more linear than TR1 (look at Palace Midas or the Cistern for an example of the much simplified level design).

Well, using the Cistern as an example - it sure got a lot smaller and less roomy (i don't mean spacious, I mean the amount of rooms :p) but in terms of actual gameplay,if anything, it got a bit more non-linear with the physics puzzle. The scale is a lot smaller but what you actually do is a bit more advanced than simply searching for keys in different rooms.

Ward Dragon

20-07-08, 00:48

Didn't Lara tell Amanda "we thought of it as a memorial" I don't get the liar part:confused:

That is the weakest excuse I have ever heard for leaving someone for dead, and the way Lara said it was so whiny and desperate to be believed :p I seriously thought Lara was making it up on the spot just so Amanda wouldn't be angry at her. I didn't realize she was actually supposed to be telling the truth until I read about the scene which was meant to take place after Lara escaped from Fluffy in the flashback sequence.

I don't agree, on either account actually. The mainstream on both industries can have it's popcornishly shallow products but the bigger the variety, the bigger the chance to find quality somewhere. 15 years ago, we didn't have games like ICO or Portal or LoK etc. Most games had no story depth. Now some do. It's an improvement. With movies I think realism has really evolved a lot. Theatricality (in a somewhat literal sense) gave way to gritty reality. The sheer genre x budget variety witnessed nowadays is too great. You might have to search past the summer blockbusters to find real quality, but it's there - and in big number.

My point with the movies/games analogy is that the more flashy and shallow a product is, apparently the better it will sell nowadays. As a result, I see a stream of movies and games which have absolutely no substance because they rely upon graphical effects and soap-opera-ish Hollywood cliches to appeal to the masses. Earlier games may not have focused as much on the story, but they had excellent gameplay. Now a lot of recent games have neither a good story nor even mediocre gameplay :(

Well, using the Cistern as an example - it sure got a lot smaller and less roomy (i don't mean spacious, I mean the amount of rooms :p) but in terms of actual gameplay,if anything, it got a bit more non-linear with the physics puzzle. The scale is a lot smaller but what you actually do is a bit more advanced than simply searching for keys in different rooms.

What physics puzzle? I don't remember any physics puzzles in the TRA cistern :confused: We just had to put boxes on pressure plates and then move the raft underneath the opening and that was it.

Endow

20-07-08, 01:33

That is the weakest excuse I have ever heard for leaving someone for dead, and the way Lara said it was so whiny and desperate to be believed :p I seriously thought Lara was making it up on the spot just so Amanda wouldn't be angry at her. I didn't realize she was actually supposed to be telling the truth until I read about the scene which was meant to take place after Lara escaped from Fluffy in the flashback sequence.

Really? Don't you know Lara never lies?:) I'm not just saying this, TR games have always featured a kind of storytelling where protagonist never deceives the audience. And I don't see it as an excuse for leaving her dead, I see it as an excuse for not looking for her body after assuming she was dead.

My point with the movies/games analogy is that the more flashy and shallow a product is, apparently the better it will sell nowadays. As a result, I see a stream of movies and games which have absolutely no substance because they rely upon graphical effects and soap-opera-ish Hollywood cliches to appeal to the masses. Earlier games may not have focused as much on the story, but they had excellent gameplay. Now a lot of recent games have neither a good story nor even mediocre gameplay :(

Well clichés have always existed. I'd even risk being a bit unfair (since I don't watch that many 50 year old + movies) by saying that movies tended to be a more similar to each other in the past, than they are nowadays.

As for games I couldn't disagree more. The quality/rubbish ratio of videogames was a lot smaller in the past. Most games were just a copy of other games. They took less risks, I'll give you that. The amount of clones in the past was even greater than nowdays. As for current games ever since I heard you were primarly a PC gamer I lost all respect for you :p;)

Really though, there is a lot of variety nowadays, you just need to know where to look. Perls like Shadow of Colossus, Mass Effect or Super Mario Galaxy are being released alongside the so-called indsutry occupant - the FPS. Sure, a lot of people rehash game formulas, but a lot of them don't. And certainly there is more innovation nowadays than there was in the past. People who truly believe otherwise are being clouded by nostalgia in some way (no offense WD:)).

What physics puzzle? I don't remember any physics puzzles in the TRA cistern :confused: We just had to put boxes on pressure plates and then move the raft underneath the opening and that was it.

Well that's what I meant by physics puzzle :p That and maneuvering the raft. It's one of the more non-linear things we ever had to do in a TR game (I'm not saying it's awesome fun or anything, just that it has a depth to it than finding a key doesn't). The point isn't that the Cistern in TRA was somehow tougher to beat then the Cistern in TR1, it's just that boiling down to simple actions in TRA you had a bit more advanced gameplay elements. Less linear anyway. There was only on puzzle in TRA, which is bad, but if the scale was adjusted it could provide more enticing than simply looking for an object or a key all the time.

Ward Dragon

20-07-08, 01:52

Really? Don't you know Lara never lies?:) I'm not just saying this, TR games have always featured a kind of storytelling where protagonist never deceives the audience. And I don't see it as an excuse for leaving her dead, I see it as an excuse for not looking for her body after assuming she was dead.

I don't know, after that "Busy girl, gotta go" scene I'll never trust her again :whi:

But seriously, everything up to that point in Legend, from the way Lara's new personality grated on me to how she sounded when she said it, I really wasn't sure if she was telling the truth and there was no way I'd believe her if I was Amanda.

In any case, in both Legend and TRA I felt that some of Lara's opponents had a lot more justification for their actions than she did. I don't know if that was intentional or if it was just because the story writer assumed we'd side with Lara no matter what so she didn't need to be given a valid reason for how she acts/reacts to everything.

Well clichés have always existed. I'd even risk being a bit unfair (since I don't watch that many 50 year old + movies) by saying that movies tended to be a more similar to each other in the past, than they are nowadays.

Maybe it's just that the unique ones have survived while nobody bothered to save the crap ones :p

As for games I couldn't disagree more. The quality/rubbish ratio of videogames was a lot smaller in the past. Most games were just a copy of other games. They took less risks, I'll give you that. The amount of clones in the past was even greater than nowdays.

I don't know about that. I haven't seen any new games in the past say 5 years which really seemed new. All of the new games I can think of just took whatever seemed popular at the time and went with it. All of the original games I've been playing lately are actually much older but I only got around to buying/playing them now.

As for current games ever since I heard you were primarly a PC gamer I lost all respect for you :p;)

Well **** you too :vlol: ;)

Really though, there is a lot of variety nowadays, you just need to know where to look. Perls like Shadow of Colossus, Mass Effect or Super Mario Galaxy are being released alongside the so-called indsutry occupant - the FPS. Sure, a lot of people rehash game formulas, but a lot of them don't. And certainly there is more innovation nowadays than there was in the past. People who truly believe otherwise are being clouded by nostalgia in some way (no offense WD:)).

Shadow of the Colossus was alright, but I didn't see anything too special in it. Mass Effect was buggy and my brother returned it out of fear it would fry his 360 (it gave him a false red ring of death which he recovered from but was seriously freaked out by). As for Super Mario Galaxy, I just played Super Mario Sunshine and I have had enough of platforming with awful controls for the time being, especially if I have to pay full price for it :p

Well that's what I meant by physics puzzle :p That and maneuvering the raft. It's one of the more non-linear things we ever had to do in a TR game (I'm not saying it's awesome fun or anything, just that it has a depth to it than finding a key doesn't). The point isn't that the Cistern in TRA was somehow tougher to beat then the Cistern in TR1, it's just that boiling down to simple actions in TRA you had a bit more advanced gameplay elements. Less linear anyway. There was only on puzzle in TRA, which is bad, but if the scale was adjusted it could provide more enticing than simply looking for an object or a key all the time.

I disagree. The added complexity of the level design in Palace Midas, The Cistern, Atlantis, etc. really meant a lot in terms of the overall gameplay experience. The new puzzles were nice, but not enough to make up for the simplified level design (ideally I want those sorts of puzzles combined with the TR1 style level design, that would be just perfect :jmp:)

Endow

20-07-08, 02:15

I don't know, after that "Busy girl, gotta go" scene I'll never trust her again :whi:

Gah!That's the kind of scene people should be making a fuss about. Not only does it have Pierre "dying" before his time, it has that stupid one liner preceded by the most evil action of the century!

IBut seriously, everything up to that point in Legend, from the way Lara's new personality grated on me to how she sounded when she said it, I really wasn't sure if she was telling the truth and there was no way I'd believe her if I was Amanda.

In any case, in both Legend and TRA I felt that some of Lara's opponents had a lot more justification for their actions than she did. I don't know if that was intentional or if it was just because the story writer assumed we'd side with Lara no matter what so she didn't need to be given a valid reason for how she acts/reacts to everything.

I like to think that CD is telling us to not take everything for granted, and not see Lara as the perfect heroine. Larson's death wasn't telling us that it's ok to kill to achieve your goals, but rather that killing a person (for the first time) is a monumental decision/event, even for people with such a blood-tainted future. TRA was explaining Lara's origins in a way. Why she became who she is.

Maybe it's just that the unique ones have survived while nobody bothered to save the crap ones :p

Maybe. I still don't like most of them though anway :p

I don't know about that. I haven't seen any new games in the past say 5 years which really seemed new. All of the new games I can think of just took whatever seemed popular at the time and went with it. All of the original games I've been playing lately are actually much older but I only got around to buying/playing them now.

You got your Patapons, and your Portals, and your No More Heroes, and your SoTCs, etc etc

Well **** you too :vlol: ;)

:D

Shadow of the Colossus was alright, but I didn't see anything too special in it. Mass Effect was buggy and my brother returned it out of fear it would fry his 360 (it gave him a false red ring of death which he recovered from but was seriously freaked out by). As for Super Mario Galaxy, I just played Super Mario Sunshine and I have had enough of platforming with awful controls for the time being, especially if I have to pay full price for it :p

I haven't actually played the last two to be fair. But I know a lot of people who swear by them (and if Kotor is any indication ME is bound to be awesome). But as for SoTC....well... how to put it kindly...:p...well the game was very bold in challenging the idea of what games can be. A game that is essentially composed of 16 boss battles, that relies heavily on it's art style and open world to create an alien atmosphere. Everything about the game was great in my opinion. It was a really emotional experience, something very rare in videogames.

I disagree. The added complexity of the level design in Palace Midas, The Cistern, Atlantis, etc. really meant a lot in terms of the overall gameplay experience. The new puzzles were nice, but not enough to make up for the simplified level design (ideally I want those sorts of puzzles combined with the TR1 style level design, that would be just perfect :jmp:)

Make no mistake - complex level design is something I value a lot. My point was simply that if you strip down TR1's level design complexity, the things that you actually do are very very basic and somewhat repetitive. Of course the whole is much bigger than the sum of it's parts (and much better than TRA) but talking about linearity in particular, other than actual architectural/path complexity TR1 isn't much better than TRA, imo.

EDIT: Dumb typo

stereopathic

20-07-08, 02:23

i'm enjoying y'all's conversation (as i'm enjoying this thread. many intelligent individuals descending on an intriguing topic - definitely more rare than it should be)and i don;t want to interrupt the flow or anything but i'm compelled to interject one thing.

i love SotC. love it. but at the same time, i can really understand why someone wouldn't care for it. what people have to respect about it though, is that it took a risk. it tried to bust the mold. for this reason, love it or hate it, it's a very important game, a game which ultimately had a tremendous impact on the industry.

Gregori

20-07-08, 02:25

Quasimodo

20-07-08, 02:30

smack. wrong thread.

Endow

20-07-08, 02:45

Simply put, Geometry and Physics determine everything you can do in the original Tomb Raiders, the arbitary decisions of a programmers/level designers determine where you can go in Legend and Anniversary. Whist TRA improves slightly, It still has the same fundamental problem.

Regardless of whether any of the levels where 'linear', anything you can see- you can touch, climb up, hang from (unless its too high) etc etc
The gameplay is almost perfect for this reason.

I like some of the things the grid system enabled us to do, but in all fairness I don't know if I want to still be able to jump onto things that really shouldn't be "jump-able" in real life. In TR1-5, everything was interactive even if it didn't make sense. Spelunking your way to find artifacts within ruins is somewhat limiting - you have to grab stuff that makes sense to be grab-able.

So unless they go towards something more like Assassins' Creed I don't think it would make sense; and even then it could still prove less "fun" than older games because realism is a paramount concern for most game developers these days, whether we like it or not (I personally do).

EDIT :

Oh and Stereopathic : spread the good word :D

Gregori

20-07-08, 02:52

I like some of the things the grid system enabled us to do, but in all fairness I don't know if I want to still be able to jump onto things that really shouldn't be "jump-able" in real life. In TR1-5, everything was interactive even if it didn't make sense. Spelunking your way to find artifacts within ruins is somewhat limiting - you have to grab stuff that makes sense to be grab-able.

So unless they go towards something more like Assassins' Creed I don't think it would make sense; and even then it could still prove less "fun" than older games because realism is a paramount concern for most game developers these days, whether we like it or not (I personally do).

EDIT :

Oh and Stereopathic : spread the good word :D

In reality, geometry nd physics determine where and what you can climb, not a develop leaving little arbitary point. In that respect TR1 is far more realistic. Its consistent and allows you to interpret anyway.

Personally I find too much "realism" the antithesis of fun in games. Gameplay first, realism second.

Ward Dragon

20-07-08, 03:00

Gah!That's the kind of scene people should be making a fuss about. Not only does it have Pierre "dying" before his time, it has that stupid one liner preceded by the most evil action of the century!

That scene is definitely not Lara to me, but I laughed so frigging hard the first time I saw it (due to how evilly clever it was) that I will not complain about it.

I like to think that CD is telling us to not take everything for granted, and not see Lara as the perfect heroine. Larson's death wasn't telling us that it's ok to kill to achieve your goals, but rather that killing a person (for the first time) is a monumental decision/event, even for people with such a blood-tainted future. TRA was explaining Lara's origins in a way. Why she became who she is.

Oh, I definitely do not see Legend/TRA Lara as the perfect anything :whi: All joking aside, that's not at all what I got out of the Larson cutscene (even if it's what the developers wanted, I can't remember what they said in the commentaries). What I got out of it is, like I said earlier, Lara doesn't know who she is or what she wants, so she lashes out reflexively on impulse when Larson challenges her that he knows who she is. She can't accept that someone else would understand her when she herself does not. Then afterwards, she realizes what a weak reason that is to kill somebody and she panics because there's no way to undo her hasty action (symbolized by the imitation of Lady Macbeth trying to wash imagined blood off of her hands due to the guilt she feels over what she's done). Then later on, Natla pulls the same crap telling Lara who she is and once again Lara reacts just to prove Natla wrong (again with the hands...:whi:). Then finally at the very end, the hands show up once again to show that Lara has accepted that her emotional reactions ended up having a net positive effect overall so she should count that as a win and move on.

You got your Patapons, and your Portals, and your No More Heroes, and your SoTCs, etc etc

Patapon? I don't know what that is. Portal is freaking awesome beyond all belief, I'll definitely concede that one :jmp: No More Heroes looked good at first but then I saw a gameplay trailer and I'm just not impressed by it (especially since I got Killer 7 and I have no idea what the **** is going on gameplay wise :confused:). I already explained about SoTC -- it's nice and I liked it, but I wouldn't have given it a second thought if I didn't hear all of the hype about it.

Make no mistake - complex level design is something I value a lot. My point was simply that if you strip down TR1's level design complexity, the things that you actually do are very very basic and somewhat repetitive. Of course the whole is much bigger than the sum of it's parts (and much better than TRA) but talking about linearity in particular, other than actual architectural/path complexity TR1 isn't much better than TRA, imo.

TR1 feels a lot less linear because of how the game is set up to rely upon actions that aren't rigidly identical. Gregori basically summed it up :D

Simply put, Geometry and Physics determine everything you can do in the original Tomb Raiders, the arbitary decisions of a programmers/level designers determine where you can go in Legend and Anniversary. Whist TRA improves slightly, It still has the same fundamental problem.

Regardless of whether any of the levels where 'linear', anything you can see- you can touch, climb up, hang from (unless its too high) etc etc
The gameplay is almost perfect for this reason.

Precisely :tmb:

Eddie Haskell

20-07-08, 03:16

In reality, geometry nd physics determine where and what you can climb, not a develop leaving little arbitary point. In that respect TR1 is far more realistic. Its consistent and allows you to interpret anyway.

Personally I find too much "realism" the antithesis of fun in games. Gameplay first, realism second.

That is why TR1 is vastly better for the game play fan. The environment and landscape is more like the real world in terms of ones interaction with it.

I would like to make another point along the lines of movement in the environment. The movements in Tomb Raider are simple, one key does one movement. You hit one key and you turn, you jump, turn about, you grab, you shoot, etc. When a designer in these modern games creates the so-called "moves" (complex, scripted movements resulting from one key press depending on the situation), it takes something away from the gamers feeling of being the character, in my opinion. The action key was brilliant, it gave one real and total control of every situation, since in order to activate the special feature for a given situation one had to perform the "action". Now these special situations are being done for you, and this tends to alienate you from the character.

Gregori

20-07-08, 03:26

I'll add to that the old controls had a wonderful tactile/tangeable quality to them. The fact that you had to hold down the action key to keep her holding on makes it feel as if you're one hanging from a ledge. There is a direct relationship between what the character is doing and what you are doing!!!

I think far too many games pay attention to "realism" instead of psychological reality. :(

Anyway, I won't rant about it too much longer since its a thread about why Lara does it.

Ward Dragon

20-07-08, 04:01

@Eddie and Gregori, oh tell me about it! I think a very large portion of the immersion I felt in the classics was due to the controls and the way that I felt Lara was an extension of myself because she always did what I told her to do via the controls (not that I always told her to do the right thing, mind you, but whenever I messed up it was clearly my own fault).

I also love the action key. I used manual grab in TRA and it added a lot for me, despite how clumsily it was implemented. If it could be seamlessly worked into Underworld I'd be thrilled :D I so badly want for the action key to return, where it tells Lara to shoot if I have the guns out, it tells Lara to pick something up if I'm standing near it, it tells her to interact if I'm near something she can interact with, it tells her to climb if I'm near something climbable, etc. That way I feel like I'm actually doing it rather than just triggering an animation, plus there's no need to spread the functions out over several keys and make the controls more complicated than they need to be.

Suzan

20-07-08, 07:21

That way I feel like I'm actually doing it rather than just triggering an animation, plus there's no need to spread the functions out over several keys and make the controls more complicated than they need to be.

Yes, yes, yes! I think it was a very bad idea to change the controls as the system in the old TRs was much more simple AND nicer to use plus it added the feeling of actually doing something (like when you had to really hold on to the action key to make sure you don't fall when climbing, monkey swinging etc.).

Ward Dragon

20-07-08, 07:24

Yes, yes, yes! I think it was a very bad idea to change the controls as the system in the old TRs was much more simple AND nicer to use plus it added the feeling of actually doing something (like when you had to really hold on to the action key to make sure you don't fall when climbing, monkey swinging etc.).

Yes, exactly!

That reminds me, one thing I really did enjoy in Shadow of the Colossus was having to hold the action key while climbing or hanging on for dear life :D That was definitely something that game did right :tmb:

Suzan

20-07-08, 07:50

If you messed up in the old TRs and your finger slipped, you fell to your death :D In Legend you could climb by simply holding one button and yawning at the same time. Lol

iamlaracroft

20-07-08, 07:55

If you messed up in the old TRs and your finger slipped, you fell to your death :D In Legend you could climb by simply holding one button and yawning at the same time. Lol

:vlol:
it's funny because its true!

Suzan

20-07-08, 07:59

It's also funny how the controls in Legend are spread to the entire keyboard and yet it's much more simple and boring to climb for example, but in TR1 you had a much more simplified controlling system and yet you had to do more to stay alive :D AND the controls still were simple and nicer to use. IMO.

Explorer

20-07-08, 16:05

TR Love - Looks like you got a lot of food for thought, in answer to your question ;)

Eddie Haskell

20-07-08, 17:05

TR Love - Looks like you got a lot of food for thought, in answer to your question ;)

...and a whole lot more... :D

Endow

21-07-08, 00:33

That scene is definitely not Lara to me, but I laughed so frigging hard the first time I saw it (due to how evilly clever it was) that I will not complain about it.

:smk: (kudos to whoever created this smiley btw)

Oh, I definitely do not see Legend/TRA Lara as the perfect anything :whi: All joking aside, that's not at all what I got out of the Larson cutscene (even if it's what the developers wanted, I can't remember what they said in the commentaries). What I got out of it is, like I said earlier, Lara doesn't know who she is or what she wants, so she lashes out reflexively on impulse when Larson challenges her that he knows who she is. She can't accept that someone else would understand her when she herself does not. Then afterwards, she realizes what a weak reason that is to kill somebody and she panics because there's no way to undo her hasty action (symbolized by the imitation of Lady Macbeth trying to wash imagined blood off of her hands due to the guilt she feels over what she's done). Then later on, Natla pulls the same crap telling Lara who she is and once again Lara reacts just to prove Natla wrong (again with the hands...:whi:). Then finally at the very end, the hands show up once again to show that Lara has accepted that her emotional reactions ended up having a net positive effect overall so she should count that as a win and move on.

This is just like Janos' ouroboros :p;) Let's just agree to disagree on this.

Patapon? I don't know what that is. Portal is freaking awesome beyond all belief, I'll definitely concede that one :jmp: No More Heroes looked good at first but then I saw a gameplay trailer and I'm just not impressed by it (especially since I got Killer 7 and I have no idea what the **** is going on gameplay wise :confused:). I already explained about SoTC -- it's nice and I liked it, but I wouldn't have given it a second thought if I didn't hear all of the hype about it.

Regardless, the point is there are a lot of creative games out there. Not so much in PC games though :p

In reality, geometry nd physics determine where and what you can climb, not a develop leaving little arbitary point. In that respect TR1 is far more realistic. Its consistent and allows you to interpret anyway.

Personally I find too much "realism" the antithesis of fun in games. Gameplay first, realism second.

Well realism is a topic for another time but as far as geometry and physics go, apart from the fact that Lara automatically grabs the ledges, I don't think there is anything wrong with the system used in Legend/Anniversary. It was sound system in terms of geometry and physics, sounder than TR1 because it mimicked the geometry and physics of the real world and the expectation of what is and is not "grabbable".

Eddie: Again, apart from the automatic grab, Crystal Lara does react very naturally to your input. Could you elaborate? She fires when you tell her to, she jumps when (and shorter or longer depending on the amount of time you leave your finger on the button) you tell her to, she automatically stops running when you stop telling her to (TR1's canned animations prevented this from being possible) and turns immediately towards the direction you tell her to turn.

Gregori

21-07-08, 01:55

Well realism is a topic for another time but as far as geometry and physics go, apart from the fact that Lara automatically grabs the ledges, I don't think there is anything wrong with the system used in Legend/Anniversary. It was sound system in terms of geometry and physics, sounder than TR1 because it mimicked the geometry and physics of the real world and the expectation of what is and is not "grabbable".

There's plenty wrong with the system in TRA/TRL. Its inconsistent. What you can physically do isn't really determined by the fundamental physics or geometry of the environment. The map is made of a bunch of meshes and A map designer simply picks out arbitrary random points and says "make that climbable". It has practically nothing got to do with the meshes.

In the real world, what's climbable is consistent and determined by geometry and the laws of physics. Same with TR1.

TR1 doesn't try to "mimic", what you see is what you get. The level isn't just a facade. The invisible hand of the programmers isn't constantly interfering with where you explore. Everything can be touched (once its within Lara's reach)

I think solid and consistent game rules are the most important part of good gameplay. A game shouldn't put false limitations on your interaction with environment.

Eddie Haskell

21-07-08, 02:10

Eddie: Again, apart from the automatic grab, Crystal Lara does react very naturally to your input. Could you elaborate? She fires when you tell her to, she jumps when (and shorter or longer depending on the amount of time you leave your finger on the button) you tell her to, she automatically stops running when you stop telling her to (TR1's canned animations prevented this from being possible) and turns immediately towards the direction you tell her to turn.

All of the triggered combat "moves" qualify. You may have to press two keys, but the result is an "event" in which you may as well take your hands from the controls for a brief period. I can't tell you how much I despise these things. I imagine 9 year olds saying stuff like "Awesome!" as they watch Lara roll in slow motion... it makes me ill.

Also (and most importantly), when she is motionless, and you use the keys to turn her, she cuts 90° to the direction that she is facing. When you use the mouse when she is moving the turn is gradual, but it is a big disadvantage to total control when one is stationary and must make a precise move to escape. And he worst attribute relating to this is the 180° turn and it's relationship to the camera. I know that they must have had a hell of a time trying to make a total system that works using the present movement capabilities. I don't envy them at all, I have thought of many methods to solve these problems but all have a shortcoming or two. The best in my opinion is a locked behind the back camera with a zoom in and out function (tied to the wheel on the mouse). Special circumstances might require a carefully scripted camera to take care of problem areas.

Gregori

21-07-08, 02:21

I highly recommend playing a game for Xbox called Unreal Championship 2.

It combined the controls of FPS with Third Person Perspective and its fluid and percise at the same time!! Your character can jump kick of wall and flip around in mid air whilst shooting (without the need for auto target!!!) and all other sorts of crazy acrobatics :D The camera is pinned behind the characters back at all times

If anybody wants to get an idea of how the controls could have been done better for a modern Tomb Raider, they should check this game out!

Eddie Haskell

21-07-08, 02:23

Gregori

21-07-08, 02:25

We all know that there is only one reason why they settled on the camera that they did. Gazoonga's... ;)

That's a pity :(

But I still really suggest everybody check out the above game, if they have an Xbox. Its controls would really suit TR, giving it the old feel but with more pin point precision and fluidity etc

Eddie Haskell

21-07-08, 02:47

That's a pity :(

But I still really suggest everybody check out the above game, if they have an Xbox. Its controls would really suit TR, giving it the old feel but with more pin point precision and fluidity etc

No Xbox or any console for me, strictly a PC player. I have purchased them for my nieces and nephews, but I am deeply biased and heavily invested in my computers.

But yes, I tell you the only benefit to the camera that they use is that one can gaze upon Lara's front at will. Certainly there is no benefit when surrounded by enemies and one must choose your target as you are rapidly running around. :(

Ward Dragon

21-07-08, 02:56

:smk: (kudos to whoever created this smiley btw)

I have a general rule -- if something is genuinely clever or gets a real laugh out of me (not laughing at it, but laughing with it :p) then I will let it slide even if it would have normally made me angry.

This is just like Janos' ouroboros :p;) Let's just agree to disagree on this.

New Lara is weak and indecisive! :ton:

Regardless, the point is there are a lot of creative games out there. Not so much in PC games though :p

Well the only really good creative game you've mentioned so far has been a PC game :ton: (Portal)

She fires when you tell her to, she jumps when (and shorter or longer depending on the amount of time you leave your finger on the button) you tell her to, she automatically stops running when you stop telling her to (TR1's canned animations prevented this from being possible) and turns immediately towards the direction you tell her to turn.

But she doesn't. The game randomly loses its mind every so often and I tell her to jump left but she jumps right or something like that. It's so very aggravating :hea:

Suzan

21-07-08, 09:59

I imagine 9 year olds saying stuff like "Awesome!" as they watch Lara roll in slow motion... it makes me ill.

Lmao :D:D

Eddie Haskell

21-07-08, 13:46

Lmao :D:D

And don't let comments in here fudge the numbers either. In today's Chicago Tribune an article was about the E3 show. There are some interesting facts that I read in it. The average age of gamers these days is 35 years old, yes that's right 35. Adult women account for 33% of all gamers. And boys 17 years or younger make up only 18% of all gamers.

So when someone in here or elsewhere says that they need to cater to the kids because they are the bulk of the gamers, think again. Particularly when we are talking about a gaming series that dates back over 10 years.

soap

21-07-08, 14:04

Eddie Haskell

21-07-08, 14:12

Back to the original topic...I believe Lara does it because she does not want other people abusing the powers of such artefacts. The artefacts she seeks arent ordinary ones. They hold some sort of power that can be used for good or evil. And Lara does not want them to be used to fulfil evil purposes. That is why she is considered a 'hero'.

Good point, but this could also be simply a by-product of her desire to possess these objects. Who in her world knows of the "good" that she accomplishes when she defeats the "evil" ones in the race to possess these objects? But in TR1, her dialog reflects your point very well, even though she never actually says anything pertaining to the good and evil aspect.

Endow

21-07-08, 15:57

There's plenty wrong with the system in TRA/TRL. Its inconsistent. What you can physically do isn't really determined by the fundamental physics or geometry of the environment. The map is made of a bunch of meshes and A map designer simply picks out arbitrary random points and says "make that climbable". It has practically nothing got to do with the meshes.

In the real world, what's climbable is consistent and determined by geometry and the laws of physics. Same with TR1.

TR1 doesn't try to "mimic", what you see is what you get. The level isn't just a facade. The invisible hand of the programmers isn't constantly interfering with where you explore. Everything can be touched (once its within Lara's reach)

I think solid and consistent game rules are the most important part of good gameplay. A game shouldn't put false limitations on your interaction with environment.

Would you mind giving me an example of something you feel should be climbable/doable and isn't in TRA (but is in TR1) ?

Obviously there are limitations, but I think TRA doesn't cheat you in anyway. You know exactly beforehand what is climbable and what is not (the "white ledges" are wrong but I mean this in a broader sense). I can't say there was anything I tried to do that simply wasn't doable in the game world and that made me go "in real life this would be possible". "What you see is what you get" is a concept that is applicable to every videogame, including TRA. By picking the controller you are automatically accepting the fact this game has a logic of it's own. This is true for both TR1 and TRA. The difference is, in TR1 everything is square (quite literally) and in TRA you have a lot more geometrical complexity, and just like in the real world, that limits your options - like it should be.With the grid/cube system there were lot of occasions that made me go "it's completely illogical for Lara to be able to climb this".

Now, if you're hinting at a system more akin to Assassins' Creed, then yes, I agree there are some pointers Crystal Lara could get from that game. It's even more realistic in that a wall isn't just flat but three-dimensional. But it appears TRU has already learned that lesson somewhat.

All of the triggered combat "moves" qualify. You may have to press two keys, but the result is an "event" in which you may as well take your hands from the controls for a brief period. I can't tell you how much I despise these things. I imagine 9 year olds saying stuff like "Awesome!" as they watch Lara roll in slow motion... it makes me ill.

Also (and most importantly), when she is motionless, and you use the keys to turn her, she cuts 90° to the direction that she is facing. When you use the mouse when she is moving the turn is gradual, but it is a big disadvantage to total control when one is stationary and must make a precise move to escape. And he worst attribute relating to this is the 180° turn and it's relationship to the camera. I know that they must have had a hell of a time trying to make a total system that works using the present movement capabilities. I don't envy them at all, I have thought of many methods to solve these problems but all have a shortcoming or two. The best in my opinion is a locked behind the back camera with a zoom in and out function (tied to the wheel on the mouse). Special circumstances might require a carefully scripted camera to take care of problem areas.

I honestly can't understand your problem with the AD. It's but one element in a list of movements/actions. I'd understand if there was no bullet time to it (meaning you'd be in a tight spot if you didn't time it right, since once you triggered it, you'd be locked in mid-air while the rest of the world moved at real-time speed). But since there is, it's no more contrived than the canned "run" animation of the older games - where if you pressed Up Arrow once, you'd still move forward for quite a bit. In the past two games, when you stopped telling her to run, she stopped.

As for the camera, I personally hadn't much of a problem with it (no coincidence - I'm usually very forgiving when it comes to coping with a game's camera system). I think 180º turns have never been done completely right in videogames. But may be a one-button movement (ala roll minus the actual rolling - just synchronized torso and leg work) should be the answer seeing as, in real life, doing a 180º turn is relatively fast.

I have a general rule -- if something is genuinely clever or gets a real laugh out of me (not laughing at it, but laughing with it ) then I will let it slide even if it would have normally made me angry.

"Busy girl, gotta go" ? :pi::p

New Lara is weak and indecisive!

History abhors a paradox. :ton:

Well the only really good creative game you've mentioned so far has been a PC game (Portal)

Portal isn't a PC game; it's a 360/PS3 game ;) Gah, I was my hands of you. If SoTC won't make you see The Light™, nothing will...

But she doesn't. The game randomly loses its mind every so often and I tell her to jump left but she jumps right or something like that. It's so very aggravating

You need to think relative to the camera :cool::p

Suzan

21-07-08, 16:17

I have a general rule -- if something is genuinely clever or gets a real laugh out of me (not laughing at it, but laughing with it :p) then I will let it slide even if it would have normally made me angry.

Same here. AND it was Lara after all, I can let quite a lot of stuff slide with her:ton: jkjk, but honestly speaking, it was just too frigging clever (and may I add, funny) to get angry about.

Eddie Haskell

21-07-08, 18:13

I honestly can't understand your problem with the AD. It's but one element in a list of movements/actions. I'd understand if there was no bullet time to it (meaning you'd be in a tight spot if you didn't time it right, since once you triggered it, you'd be locked in mid-air while the rest of the world moved at real-time speed). But since there is, it's no more contrived than the canned "run" animation of the older games - where if you pressed Up Arrow once, you'd still move forward for quite a bit. In the past two games, when you stopped telling her to run, she stopped.

As for the camera, I personally hadn't much of a problem with it (no coincidence - I'm usually very forgiving when it comes to coping with a game's camera system). I think 180º turns have never been done completely right in videogames. But may be a one-button movement (ala roll minus the actual rolling - just synchronized torso and leg work) should be the answer seeing as, in real life, doing a 180º turn is relatively fast.

The AD is childish. Any and all of these gimmicky moves are infantile to me. I want a movement and a combat simulation, not a gimmicky arcade game. I want the experience to be as if Lara and I were one and the same. That is why simple controls (and their associated movements) are the best. That is not to say that one could not do some more complex movements that required hitting an extra key, but no sci-fi crap or anything out of the realm of human movement. Auto-grab is surely the poster child for the theft of real control, that and every heavily scripted movement (and their associated animations) that the designers thought the gaming crowd would find "cool". I don't...:mad:

The action key was pure genius. It had multiple roles, but everything that it did made sense to the gamer depending on the situation. I imagined that future TR games would become more and more realistic in the movements, so that by now one could aim Lara to the inch, truly be able to precisely gauge a jump with great accuracy, etc. Instead we are given a game that practically plays by itself. The game is at least 85% about movement in various environments. If this movement is oversimplified by the software performing most of the hard work for you then where's the fun for someone like me?

robm_2007

21-07-08, 18:39

Apart from the most recent two games (legend and anniversary) lara has has pretty much no reason to collect the artifacts. seriously why does she collect them? coz people with artifacts are cool? she that she can sell them on the black market? lara has just been dying for the hell of it up until the new generation graphics appeared and she wants to no what happend to her mother. when ever i play the games and die i think "why the hell does she do it if she just dies anyway". has anyone ever thought that?

its her passion. and so they dont fall into the wrong hands.

Ward Dragon

21-07-08, 20:07

Same here. AND it was Lara after all, I can let quite a lot of stuff slide with her:ton: jkjk, but honestly speaking, it was just too frigging clever (and may I add, funny) to get angry about.

Yes, exactly :D

Would you mind giving me an example of something you feel should be climbable/doable and isn't in TRA (but is in TR1) ?

I haven't played TRA in awhile so I can't give a specific example, but there are plenty of moments where I tried to jump onto a ledge but Lara chose to smack her face into it and bounce off instead of grabbing (and yes, this was with autograb enabled because I wanted to settle whether I was losing my mind or not with the manual grab not always grabbing when I told it to:p)

I honestly can't understand your problem with the AD.

Well, my problem with the AD is that they only tell you how to do it once and there's absolutely no way to practice it in the manor, plus the instructions in the manual were incorrect. I had no frigging idea what I was doing until I read some very detailed threads here explaining the stupid move. Plus, there's not really a choice whether or not to use it. The normal enemies get enraged extremely easily forcing the player to either use the AD quite frequently or jump through hoops to avoid triggering it, and then in the boss battles it's absolutely mandatory in order to win.

"Busy girl, gotta go" ? :pi::p

It was so unexpected and it actually made sense in that scenario, plus Lara just pulled off something I'd expect of the Devil in a horror movie :vlol:

History abhors a paradox. :ton:

Right, so lets kill off this time-meddling imposter Lara now and bring back the real Lara before we get a fatal paradox which erases the TR series completely :ton:

Portal isn't a PC game; it's a 360/PS3 game ;)

Portal is indeed a PC game. What are you talking about? :confused:

Gah, I was my hands of you. If SoTC won't make you see The Light™, nothing will...

It was a nice game, but nothing spectacular. I mean, the boss battles themselves were pretty cool, but there was nothing to do in between boss battles. Just riding from one battle to the next got pretty boring.

You need to think relative to the camera :cool::p

I was!!! Gah, if I had a digital camcorder, I would record myself pressing 'A' (left) while Lara jumps to the right from the camera's point of view :hea: I would say at least 15% of the time she jumps in the wrong direction, and I'm not even counting the times when the camera erratically shifts of its own accord in the middle of a jumping sequence which causes the keys to retroactively be redefined even if I was already holding it before the camera shift occurred :hea: I ****ing hate that section in Egypt where you have to jump across the moving statues. The camera always screws me over there, and it's timed to boot :hea:

The action key was pure genius. It had multiple roles, but everything that it did made sense to the gamer depending on the situation. I imagined that future TR games would become more and more realistic in the movements, so that by now one could aim Lara to the inch, truly be able to precisely gauge a jump with great accuracy, etc. Instead we are given a game that practically plays by itself. The game is at least 85% about movement in various environments. If this movement is oversimplified by the software performing most of the hard work for you then where's the fun for someone like me?

Definitely. I want the action key back.

Suzan

21-07-08, 21:10

ACTION KEY, ACTION KEY! :D Yessss, it was great, you could perform many different tasks with it, like "oh, now I gotta do something, how about action key? yay, it works!" and I liked the old control system better anyways... action key is a friend.

Twilight

21-07-08, 23:55

x marks the spot ;)....on the PS1 controller anyway.

Apart from the most recent two games (legend and anniversary) lara has has pretty much no reason to collect the artifacts. seriously why does she collect them? coz people with artifacts are cool? she that she can sell them on the black market? lara has just been dying for the hell of it up until the new generation graphics appeared and she wants to no what happend to her mother. when ever i play the games and die i think "why the hell does she do it if she just dies anyway". has anyone ever thought that?

classic lara's motive was to be alone and a desire to collect artifacts. that plane crash was suppose to be the time when she realized she was only truely alive when she was alone and searching. she doesnt sell the artifacts, she has a treasure room.

that's her reason. its her desire. it had nothing to do with her mother, father, family.
in a way, when we play TR, we the players and lara are exploring for the same reason. the fun of it and for the artifact.

the stories that involved saving the world was to make the story itself more interesting/dramatic. lara isnt exactly a "good guy", but she's the the type of person to do nothing while some lunatic tries to destroy/conquer the earth.