06-02-19, 17:03 | #51 |
Member
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,356
|
I wanna know how and why people think open world is either necessary or appropriate for Tomb Raider tbh
The main event of Tomb Raider is, well, the tombs yknow? I don't really care to see Lara trekking across the country to reach the main attraction. Some outdoorsy areas are nice and can be semi-open but I don't see a need for a huge open map littered with small meagre tombs. Again I don't know why people think it's a binary option of railroad linearity or no holds barred full open world. There's a lot in between those options. We can still have complex sprawling big levels that are not linear, but still self-contained. Last edited by Yeauxleaux; 06-02-19 at 17:05. |
06-02-19, 18:09 | #52 | ||
Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 22,971
|
Quote:
This is why Linear gameplay is better for TR, but don't say the word Linear, people will act like you've said a bad word. Quote:
Were classics boring to you? Last edited by charmedangelin; 06-02-19 at 18:12. |
||
06-02-19, 18:24 | #53 | ||
Member
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,356
|
Quote:
The classic games were less linear. Many levels offered a series of small hubs that connected with eachother for complexity, different routes and orders in which you could do things, lots of verticality instead of just a straight-forward path, backtracking etc. They weren't strictly linear levels even if they might have had only one entrace and one exit. They were not open world either by any means, but they were not strictly linear. I remember someone (I think it was Dennis' Mom) said once on here - "You didn't play a level, you solved a level" and I really liked that. Again.... Quote:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...rityVsOpenness It's actually a sliding scale and it is relative. However like I said, I feel that many current AAA games are (for some weird reason) being shoehorned into being at either end of the scale given on this page, we're not seeing a lot of balance. Last edited by Yeauxleaux; 06-02-19 at 18:26. |
||
06-02-19, 18:26 | #54 |
Member
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 2,967
|
I don`t care in what place Lara goes next.
I just want tombs where I am lost and I try to find my way out or to the artifact I am looking for. „I am back here. Why? What did I missed? I should go back. Oh look a hidden switch in the wall. Oh it opens a path. Ah a lever. Oh it does this. Now where do I go next?„ I love reboot games but I hate their linearity especially inside tombs. |
06-02-19, 18:41 | #55 |
Member
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,440
|
I think "backtracking" has become a bad word around the PS2 era. And backtracking is a need in open linearity like the classics had. Tombs should be the main attraction, but the classics also had some areas around the tombs, like forests, deserts, PSIV's hubs. The difference is they were levels in themselves with their own challenges to solve. I know many disagree, but the hubs of reboot to me are busywork to get to the part I really want and filler to artificially enlarge the game. I've read many say they like the hubs because they like finding the entrance to the tombs and stuff, but you were doing that in the classics too, except it was in levels, not in a boring hub.
|
06-02-19, 18:42 | #56 | |
Member
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 236
|
Quote:
I enjoyed the classics I’ve been able to play very much, but I’m just saying what I’d like to see I see some things that could be implemented with an open world I id think I’d be fun it’s just my opinion that I wanted to share. |
|
06-02-19, 19:55 | #57 |
Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 32,121
|
Open world is a no no from me. Crystal have already turned Tomb Raider into a pointless collectaphon and it'd only get worse if the game went open world. At the moment open world games tend to either focus on scale and not fill the world with meaningful content or they cram so much subpar content in under the guise of there's so much to do, that the gameplay quickly becomes monotonous. I don't want either of those things for Tomb Raider.
|
06-02-19, 20:27 | #58 |
Member
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,440
|
^Yes, open world makes devs think lazyness is correct. Most open worlds feel like they've come from a randomizer program, lacking new content and being repetitive. Everything usually doesn't feel thought-out, but simply tacked-on. TR's hubs already are like that. That's why the tombs are the best part. Being thought-out takes the effort to, well, think it. The tombs are good because they're small and so don't take that much effort. The hubs are big, so to make them good would take much more effort. Imagine every collectable in one reboot game's hubs being a designed challenge, how much more effort that would take?! I think Zelda BotW was so acclaimed because it did open world right, there is a lot of it that's designed. But that game took a lot of time to make, with many delays to boot (also, it's Nintendo).
Last edited by paulojr_mam; 06-02-19 at 20:41. |
06-02-19, 20:44 | #59 |
Member
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 532
|
Im trying an tombraider marathon, and im now at tr2.
I think those levels are huge. Especially for that time. I dont even see the classics as “linear”. You dont have imo a straight forwarded line and you can actually explore without forced animations. You can get lost. Like each level is an huge open area. I dont want hubs back with camps. |
06-02-19, 20:44 | #60 |
Member
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 583
|
i really don't like the hubs idea tbh, there's some parts of the game
that you can't access anymore because it's only in the beginning of the game instead of the hubs they could get together the whole map |
Thread Tools | |
|
|