Tomb Raider Forums  

Go Back   Tomb Raider Forums > Tomb Raider Franchise > Future of Tomb Raider

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 16-03-19, 05:20   #611
Ellioft
Member
 
Ellioft's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 5,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charmedangelin View Post
If RE 1 remaster can sell on tank controls then so can Tomb Raider. It's not an impossible learning curve. 6 year old me could do it, it's not that hard.
The thing is at this time of the release of RE1 remake in 2002 the last game who has been released was Code Veronica in 1999 and every survival horrors used tank controls and camera angles like Alone in the Dark or Silent Hill. It's not because they wanted to gives the fans a faithfull gameplay but more because they didn't know something else. Also tank controls in a survival horror game made sence because the key element is a sence of tension and danger.

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.
Ellioft is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-19, 05:51   #612
charmedangelin
Member
 
charmedangelin's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 22,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellioft View Post
The thing is at this time of the release of RE1 remake in 2002 the last game who has been released was Code Veronica in 1999 and every survival horrors used tank controls and camera angles like Alone in the Dark or Silent Hill. It's not because they wanted to gives the fans a faithfull gameplay but more because they didn't know something else. Also tank controls in a survival horror game made sence because the key element is a sence of tension and danger.

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.
If they are going to do the crash and spyro thing then it would be disingenious to change the controls. All of the platforming is based on the control scheme. If they change the controls then the platforming won't work or would be too easy or broken.

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.
charmedangelin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-19, 07:42   #613
Hazelphoenix
Member
 
Hazelphoenix's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 2,712
Default

^ 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.
Hazelphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-19, 12:43   #614
Sanglyph
Member
 
Sanglyph's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 460
Default

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.
Sanglyph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-19, 13:10   #615
paulojr_mam
Member
 
paulojr_mam's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,440
Default

There's nothing "archaic" about the system of the classics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyrobinson View Post
Honestly critically it would be panned because of the controls unless they did something to work them out better for modern gamers.
I don't believe it would be panned critically. I also believe the reviewers that panned them for this would get flak. If the critics pan the remakes for this, shame on them!
Quote:
Originally Posted by charmedangelin View Post
If RE 1 remaster can sell on tank controls then so can Tomb Raider. It's not an impossible learning curve. 6 year old me could do it, it's not that hard.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanglyph View Post
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.
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.
paulojr_mam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-19, 13:22   #616
Scilli
Member
 
Scilli's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulojr_mam View Post
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.
To give you some context:

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.
Scilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-19, 13:34   #617
paulojr_mam
Member
 
paulojr_mam's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scilli View Post
To give you some context:

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.
Nowhere there is denied the game was always meant to be a platformer. But the grid system was the form, the way, they found to do that. And they really liked this form, otherwise they wouldn't have kept it. And the form was so good it helped them with every other aspect of gameplay, it tied it all together.
paulojr_mam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-19, 13:44   #618
Scilli
Member
 
Scilli's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulojr_mam View Post
Nowhere there is denied the game was always meant to be a platformer.But the grid system was the form, the way, they found to do that. And they really liked this form, otherwise they wouldn't have kept it. And the form was so good it helped them with every other aspect of gameplay, it tied it all together.
Lets look it a bit from a different angle.

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.
Scilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-19, 13:48   #619
paulojr_mam
Member
 
paulojr_mam's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scilli View Post
But it is clear to have platforming elements they had to build the game arround that system.
No, they didn't. They could have tried to find another way. If they found the way they found not to be good enough. But no, when they found the grid system, they knew they had found the best possible way. I agree that it only was the best way because it was on the d-pad and the PS1 and Saturn didn't have analog sticks yet. Not that it matters, it doesn't matter why these features came to be defining characteristics of the game, it just matters that they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scilli View Post
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.
I suppose it's "wasn't" in the place of "was".
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.
paulojr_mam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-19, 13:53   #620
Scilli
Member
 
Scilli's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulojr_mam View Post
No, they didn't. They could have tried to find another way. If they found the way they found not to be good enough. But no, when they found the grid system, they knew they had found the best possible way. I agree that it only was the best way because it was on the d-pad and the PS1 and Saturn didn't have analog sticks yet. Not that it matters, it doesn't matter why these features came to be defining characteristics of the game, it just matters that they did.
Once again i quote directly from wiki:

...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:
Originally Posted by paulojr_mam View Post
You might not be saying that but Sanglyph, who I quoted, was, when he said: "Tomb Raider was never supposed to be a platformer".
Yes and i just wanted to give context so it clarifies the background.
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.
Scilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 13:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Tomb Raider Forums is not owned or operated by CDE Entertainment Ltd.
Lara Croft and Tomb Raider are trademarks of CDE Entertainment Ltd.