31-01-18, 01:37 | #21 | |
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 70,326
|
Quote:
People may buy anything if you make a big enough stink about it. |
|
31-01-18, 02:36 | #22 |
Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,263
|
|
31-01-18, 03:57 | #23 |
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 70,326
|
|
31-01-18, 13:29 | #24 | |
Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,263
|
Quote:
I don't know where you fall in the whole enjoyed it/disappointed by it spectrum (though I can take a guess based on your weird "it's a mystery why anyone would buy this game" comment), but it's obvious, based on sales, that the TReboot games have been bought by a lot of people who feel that the game is good. Nothing mysterious about that at all, as long as one can get past the self-centered view of "how I feel about the game is the correct way to feel about the game." |
|
31-01-18, 15:51 | #25 | |
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 70,326
|
Quote:
|
|
31-01-18, 18:42 | #26 | ||
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 15,409
|
Quote:
Quote:
-SE took over and a much bigger budget (and expectations for the franchise) was on the table. -Uncharted and Assassin's Creed - which pushed the standard for adventure games way higher. I think the reboots are a version of UC. I know this is an unpopular opinion on here but to me it's really clear and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the development team had openly stated this as a development objective for TR2013 at the time: "Let's make UC with Lara Croft and a twist (survival + darker themes) to give it some market differentiation" (or words to that effect). |
||
31-01-18, 19:00 | #27 | |
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,852
|
Quote:
I was pretty young back in '06, but I was really active on Planet Lara forums then. Like, glued-to-my-computer active. It was unhealthy. But I remember the die hard TR fans' backlash to Legend quite well. We always remember the negative more than we do the positive, though...from what I recall, the fans were really divided on Legend. Loads of people hated it, but a lot of fans praised the direction that Crystal took with Legend. And a lot of those people were the die hard TR fans who'd had an equally negative response to Angel of Darkness. We all remember how poorly Angel of Darkness was received, but we sometimes forget that it was Core's own PS2 title that kind of spurred the dividing of the fan base long before Legend came around. Nigel Cassidy was the first one to mention Uncharted releasing a year later in '07 (Assassins Creed also) and how it raised the bar on action-adventure games. The reboot is usually seen as Crystal's response to those games; their TR games just couldn't compete and a reboot was the only path forward to becoming competitive. Here's where I feel that statement is wrong. Consider for a moment that it's 2007. Legend has been out for a while and it's received favorable reviews from most critics. Then Uncharted steps in and raises the bar. It's a next generation title through and through, and Legend looks dated in comparison. But really it's not that different from Legend. The main focus is combat, whereas Legend is more about platforming. But they're both linear, action adventure games. Uncharted delivers a more cinematic, playable-movie style game. Legend's lock-on target combat is looking really dated in comparison to Uncharted's free aim, duck-and-cover combat. So let's say Crystal responds in a hypothetical Legend sequel by:
With the first two revisions alone, you're already halfway to the reboot. Legend already had more varied and interesting platforming than Uncharted did in 2007. The platforming got much better in subsequent Uncharted sequels, but I think it's fair to say Legend had the advantage back then. So let's say Crystal continues to build on platforming, physics based puzzles, and liberal use of the grapple. They also expand their linear environments into more open, platform heavy areas. Now we've reached the hubs of TR2013, only this time the grapple is rope arrows. You see, you can kind of envision this timeline where TR became the same style of game it is now without the necessity of a reboot. It wouldn't have ended up exactly like the reboot games are now, as I've alluded to, but the point I'd like to make is that Legend and TR2013 aren't radically different from one another. I'd go so far as to say TR2013 is the spiritual successor to Legend. In my opinion, Crystal's TR games pre-2013 were held back by their inability to adopt to the modern mechanics that the industry was heading toward. Instead they tried to appease fans by creating an experience that was more similar to the classics. People say that Underworld has the most in common with Core's original Tomb Raider games and that it delivers the most "classic" experience in a modern TR. That's may be true, but the overall experience was too glitchy and dated to compete with the big boys. Controlling Lara went from a breeze in Legend to a battle in Underworld. The camera, not great to begin with, became junk. Above all, combat in Underworld is abysmal. It's not fun, challenging, or rewarding. The camera during combat is horrendous in the way it shifts focus so jarringly from one target to the next. Imagine if Underworld had devoted the same amount of research and development that went into TR2013. Imagine if Crystal had ditched the lock on target combat with free aim. Imagine they kept the thematic tone more consistent with Legend: light-hearted and fun, rather than dark and gritty. Legend has plenty of drama and intrigue in its story while still remaining light, in the same way that say, TR1 is. And lastly, imagine with Legend story was left unresolved, with Lara instead winding up on an adventure to find oh, I don't know, the lost city of gold? (I deserve a slap in the face for that one ) Instead, it seems they tried to appease fans by putting TR back in line with the classics. They also tried to adopt the "gritty" style that was really popular at the time, and make TR more serious in the process. The result was sort of a fragmented and underdeveloped jumble. I'll wrap it up at the risk of rambling. In my opinion, Legend and TR2013 share a very similar foundation. Crystal's inability to embrace their fresh take on TR and keep up with the changing times may have stemmed from negative feedback to Legend, but Legend itself was not the root cause. They walked back from Legend and tried to deliver an experience that had become too dated to hold its own among its modern counterparts. |
|
31-01-18, 19:05 | #28 | |
Member
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 2,967
|
Quote:
Uncharted took some inspiration from Tomb Raider. Tomb Raider 2013 took some inspiration from Uncharted but adding darker themes, survival and optional stuff making it less linear than Uncharted and shorter action set pieces and no hand to hand combat. And now Uncharted TLL took inspiration from Tomb Raider adding optional puzzles and a daddy story. |
|
31-01-18, 21:48 | #29 |
Member
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 10,492
|
Uncharted 1 and Assassin's Creed 1 were fresh new air in the action-adventure genre at the time, I will not deny that. But they were flawed games, IMO. Not as broken as TRU of course but still. AC1 especially, while I like its unique flavour, was really repetitive, it was clear the game was searching itself. I think we have to wait U2 and AC2 (both 2009) which really set the bar and the popularity of their franchises. I don't believe the first ones really overshadowed LAU, not that significantly.
I have the feeling some of you think LAU games did not succeed or somewhat there's a problem there. Not saying I hold the truth but I think the opposite. Actually Legend has sold well and Underworld... too. Early 2009, Eidos statement said the later sold about 2.5 M and Legend 4.5 M (IIRC). While a difference of 2M seems high, we must not forget that TRU was only a 4 months old game and TRL nearly 3 yo. It's not a proper comparison. Let's say at the same amount of time, TRL sold about 3M (again, if I'm not wrong). The difference here is not that high, for a game which is considered as a broken and disappointing sequel... the audience was still there. Then there was the infamous event that could prove me wrong : 30 workers at Crystal was fired. Clearly an evidence of a failure. Because of TRU weak sales and TR popularity in decline ? More about Eidos weak and impulsive decisions if you ask me. As the game had met the expectations later, it was totally unnecessary. Fortunately they did not repeat their error for TR'13 and waited a bit to see if the game did well. And then it became the most successful game of the franchise. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Now enough about me annoyingly defend that damn indefensible Underworld. I believe the main thing why the reboot exists is that Square Enix wanted their big AAA game. They wanted Tomb Raider to be set in a whole new level in the market. So the initial idea, TR Ascension, was scrapped. Not profitable enough. Horror like and inspired by Shadow of the Colossus ? Too niche. The new game has to sell high, really high. TR'13 then is a clever mix of big trends. LAU did contributed a bit, inevitably because Crystal had to reflect to their own past games and estimate what is still relevant in these games in 2012/13. Last edited by Chamayoo; 31-01-18 at 22:11. |
31-01-18, 22:06 | #30 | |
Member
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,002
|
Quote:
(I really struggle to explain this haha) Last edited by Revenge; 31-01-18 at 22:07. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|