16-03-19, 05:20 | #611 | |
Member
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 5,364
|
Quote:
But for Tomb Raider peoples expect more fluidity for a game when you jump, crawl, sprint and fight it need to have reactive controls. Anniversary is a lot of fun because of the fluidity of the controls. For a remake they could try to do the same but with an increase of the difficulty kinda like Dagger of Xian. It doesn't have the tank controls but it's more difficult for the player. |
|
16-03-19, 05:51 | #612 | |
Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 22,971
|
Quote:
Nicobus remake works because it is a remake, not a remaster. Tank controls also made sense for TR because it was based on precise platforming. |
|
16-03-19, 07:42 | #613 |
Member
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 2,712
|
^ I agree with tank controls being the focal point of the entire control system at the time; even though they’re undoubtedly born from a technical limitation Core cleverly turned them into an interesting opportunity to increase the difficulty of platforming.
Just need to point out one thing though: both Spyro and Crash have had some sort of controls revamp. I’ve been playing the og Spyro since I was a child, and when the Trilogy came out in November I spent a lot of hours on that one as well, and there’s no way they play the same. They didn’t exactly alter Spyro’s movements to a drastic point, alright, but there’s definitely more fluidity and more responsiveness. They did slightly change the controls: they took the core and simply modernized it a little bit. Tank controls as they were in the 90’s wouldn’t really be ideal for a modern remake/remaster. However, I agree that they shouldn’t get rid of that system completely and should perhaps try to find the right balance instead. Like.... modernized tank controls? Keeping the grid and just increase Lara’s fluidity. Is it even feasible? Not sure because I’m not a game developer. Spyro and TR’s control systems were slightly different to begin with, so what works for one doesn’t necessarily have to work for the other one too. |
16-03-19, 12:43 | #614 |
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 460
|
I never understood how everyone imagines a TR1-3 remaster to even look and play like. Crash and Spyro are two very cartoony Jump and Run games with over the top fantasy worlds and characters, so remastering them was really no problem at all.
TR was always the most realistic a game could get at the time, in terms of believability of the environments and the way Lara was able to navigate them. It was an attempt to recreate real worlds in level spaces with a realistic human protagonist (safe for the Bermuda Triangles and the astronomical hip-to-waist ratio). The entire grid system was meant to simulate real surfaces like climbable rocks, walls, trees and the like and it felt as realistic as technically possible for the time. Over the decades, this system evolved naturally into the third person action adventure that it became with the LAU trilogy and the reboot, AOD being the last remnant for the then already outdated and obsolete mechanics. Translating this archaic system with its blocky art style and stiff movements into an AAA remaster is close to impossible. The only thing that is somewhat feasible is what that team of fans was trying to accomplish by re-releasing the first three games with HQ textures and new particle effects and the like. But then, even that was mostly aimed at hardcore fans who have been playing the Classics ever since they were released and are still familiar with the gameplay. Anyone else would maybe pick them up for nostalgia's sake and then drop them almost immediately after not enjoying the stale framework, look and feel that would only be painted over with bright new fancy looking colors. This is where Spyro and Crash work well and sell like hot cakes, the mechanics have never become outdated because platformers have never changed their core principles, they still work the same way as they did in the 90s. Tomb Raider was never supposed to be a platformer and only shared some design aspects with the genre because it was the only way for Core to pull off the vision they had at the time. Last edited by Sanglyph; 16-03-19 at 12:46. |
16-03-19, 13:10 | #615 | ||
Member
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,440
|
There's nothing "archaic" about the system of the classics.
Quote:
Quote:
What? How was it "the only way for Core to pull off the vision they had"? I don't understand. Unlike during 16-bit era, plenty of games weren't platformers during 32-bit era. |
||
16-03-19, 13:22 | #616 | |
Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,306
|
Quote:
A three-dimensional action-adventure like Tomb Raider was unprecedented at the time, and the development team struggled to find a way to make Toby Gard's vision for the game work on contemporary hardware, in particular getting the player character to interact with freeform environments.[13] According to programmer Gavin Rummery, the decision to build the entire game world on a grid was the key breakthrough in making the game possible.[13] Though the 3D platforming gameplay, player character abilities, and focus on exploration have been likened to Super Mario 64, the developers have denied it was an influence on Tomb Raider,[1] and development on Tomb Raider started well before Super Mario 64 had been shown to the public. |
|
16-03-19, 13:34 | #617 | |
Member
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,440
|
Quote:
|
|
16-03-19, 13:44 | #618 | |
Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,306
|
Quote:
But the grid system was the form, the way, they found to do that. A game starts with a vision and in order for them to make the vision work they used the Grid system. What does that mean? For them to even have a platforming game in a 3D enviroment they had to use this Grid system. The invention of the Grid System already implies the dedication towards the platforming. Otherwise they wouldnt have needed to invent it. Im not saying that Tomb Raider always was meant to be a platformer. But it is clear to have platforming elements ,they had to build the game arround that system. Last edited by Scilli; 16-03-19 at 13:47. |
|
16-03-19, 13:48 | #619 | ||
Member
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,440
|
Quote:
Quote:
You might not be saying that but Sanglyph, who I quoted, was, when he said: "Tomb Raider was never supposed to be a platformer". Last edited by paulojr_mam; 16-03-19 at 13:51. |
||
16-03-19, 13:53 | #620 | ||
Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,306
|
Quote:
...the decision to build the entire game world on a grid was the key breakthrough in making the game possible There would have been no Tomb Raider 1 as we know it without that system. It wasnt a matter of choosing. It was a matter what was possible at that time. Quote:
Personally, i wouldnt say it was never supposed to be a platformer, because as explained the implication and invention of the grid system already implies the wish to have platforming elements in a 3D Space. Last edited by Scilli; 16-03-19 at 13:57. |
||
Thread Tools | |
|
|