PDA

View Full Version : Crystal Dynamics is developing TR10 Multiplayer



Shaikh
15th Sep 2013, 05:38
Position Summary:

Crystal Dynamics is looking for an outstanding Multiplayer Designer to work with our development team to develop a unique online experience. The Multiplayer Game Designer will develop and implement multiplayer systems from concept to completion. A successful Multiplayer Designer will be a hands on individual with a strong understanding of everything from the fundamentals of game balance and tuning to the social implications of shared gameplay. They will have experience leading other developers to build engaging multiplayer modes and campaigns.

-Concept, design and implement multiplayer game systems from the ground up
-Lead and manage other developers on the team. Serve as a champion for online game components at the studio.
-Work with other Designers to ensure successful integration of game play systems into the game
-Broad based understanding about what makes multiplayer levels and systems fun
-Ability to design and develop multiplayer systems design from concept to finished product
-Strong math and balancing skills
-Ability to communicate and present complex interactive/social game systems
-Experience working on multiplayer systems for highly rated (AAA) action-adventure titles or 3rd person shooter titlesCrystalD (http://www.crystald.com/workwithus/apply-here)

Note they mention "multiplayer modes and campaigns" which might be a co-op mode as well. :D

Metalrocks
15th Sep 2013, 06:24
not good. not happy. im sure it will be as worthless and forgettable like this MP. i still hope they will have again separate companies working for each part. otherwise i have to rethink of getting it if coop is planed in to it.

Shaikh
15th Sep 2013, 06:37
I am glad because EM made a lot of mistakes with TR9 MP. Hopefully CD can fix them and make it more innovative.

d1n0_xD
15th Sep 2013, 06:54
Came for the SP, stayed for the SP :D

nevillet
15th Sep 2013, 07:01
*Struggles but fails to get excited*

http://imageshack.us/a/img692/4259/8d6j.jpg

Driber
15th Sep 2013, 08:59
not good. not happy. im sure it will be as worthless and forgettable like this MP. i still hope they will have again separate companies working for each part. otherwise i have to rethink of getting it if coop is planed in to it.

Have you thought that having people from CD themselves working on MP could be a good thing for the quality of MP, compared to completely outsourcing it? ;)

As for buying the game or not, you know what we've been saying since like forever, right - if you don't like MP, then don't play MP :cool:

Shaikh
15th Sep 2013, 09:16
Have you thought that having people from CD themselves working on MP could be a good thing for the quality of MP, compared to completely outsourcing it? ;)
IKR? TR9 SP is very well polished where MP has some minor bugs. I always have this feeling that the MP could have been much better if CrystalD developed it instead of a very small part of EM. :)

Good to see they are keeping MP, being positive about it and developed it from the mistakes of TR9 MP. :)

pirate1802
15th Sep 2013, 09:24
if you don't like MP, then don't play MP :cool:

Indeed.

I always wondered how the combat platforming etc felt silky smooth in the SP, almost perfect but felt very cumbesome and cluttered in the MP. Never was able to put my fingers on why it was so, but this may be it. CD developing MP may mean the MP would be as silky :p

Anyway, good to see they are not ditching the MP after the negative response. If you stick with it, you may succeed, while there is no chance of succeeding if ye give up!

VaBanes
15th Sep 2013, 10:42
Of course, if you don't like MP, don't play MP.
The problem is, I think they shouldn't "waste" their time for that and invest more into the single player part.

pirate1802
15th Sep 2013, 10:53
Well, something good may come out of it afterall! When AC introduced MP I didn't like it either. Now look at me, wasting hundreds of hours into those MPs..

pidipidi39
15th Sep 2013, 12:06
Oh... this is... IDK news. I mean, it's neither bad or good. Just... we'll see.


Have you thought that having people from CD themselves working on MP could be a good thing for the quality of MP, compared to completely outsourcing it? ;)
This is something I never thought about :) I have faith in CD :D


As for buying the game or not, you know what we've been saying since like forever, right - if you don't like MP, then don't play MP :cool:
This is very true, but a bad MP could lower the game's reviews :hmm:


IKR? TR9 SP is very well polished where MP has some minor bugs.

Minor?
I would say enormous lol

Metalrocks
15th Sep 2013, 13:43
Of course, if you don't like MP, don't play MP.
The problem is, I think they shouldn't "waste" their time for that and invest more into the single player part.

exactly. thats why i always feel uncomfortable if one company does both. the SP is mostly the one that gets less attention and in the end we have either a short campaign or poorly written story that everyone forgets.

Driber
15th Sep 2013, 13:50
Of course, if you don't like MP, don't play MP.
The problem is, I think they shouldn't "waste" their time for that and invest more into the single player part.

A lot of people (would) like TR MP, so it's not really a "waste" in that regard, IMO. It just matters on how it's done.


This is very true, but a bad MP could lower the game's reviews :hmm:

But that already happened, remember? Some big review websites scored TR9 lower due to the MP part.

The game still went on to sell fantastically and was highly critically acclaimed in the media and among the fans.

Review scores aren't everything :cool:


exactly. thats why i always feel uncomfortable if one company does both. the SP is mostly the one that gets less attention and in the end we have either a short campaign or poorly written story that everyone forgets.

People will *always* be saying that. Even if the game is awesome :whistle:

Again, look at TR9 - MP was done entirely at a different studio and the story and game length was still criticized.

So I'm sorry, but that's a completely flawed (and by now, cliché) argument in my view.

Metalrocks
15th Sep 2013, 14:13
cant remember hearing bad things about the game length but about the story i have and i pretty much agree. the story had its flaws but the really big issue is, how poorly the side characters have been explained. but thats my view on it.

look at fear 3. because they focused so much on coop, it was really a shooting gallery and no horror at all. yes, it still explained the story about alma but gameplay wise was just not the same anymore.
or even orcs must die 2. the levels were designed for 2 players. playing them alone was really hard because you dont have enough resourced to cover enough ground.

a_big_house
15th Sep 2013, 15:01
As of right now, being so early into the development of the game, they shouldn't even be thinking about multiplayer (and that includes Co-op) :hmm:

Shaikh
15th Sep 2013, 16:43
So you want them to think about it when the release date is near? Thinking and the planning is the first thing to develop something.

pirate1802
15th Sep 2013, 16:48
So you want them to think about it when the release date is near? Thinking and the planning is the first thing to develop something.

hahaha exactly what I was thinking.

*2 months before release*

Right, now is the time to make the MP!

Shaikh
15th Sep 2013, 17:32
Minor?
I would say enormous lol
Well everyone isn't as much skilled as the king of Multiplayer developer DICE. :cool:


hahaha exactly what I was thinking.

*2 months before release*

Right, now is the time to make the MP!
Yeah. Beside the game is well into the development and we have to remember TR9 reached Alpha stage back in January 2012. So some of the devs are working on this for 20 months now. :)

pirate1802
15th Sep 2013, 17:46
So some of the devs are working on this for 20 months now. :)[/COLOR]

I can't wait for the reveal :O


Give us something already. Even a few-second long teaser will do!

VaBanes
15th Sep 2013, 18:01
I can't wait for the reveal :O


Give us something already. Even a few-second long teaser will do!

Even some sort of teaser picture will do.
Even just a new "sentence" about the sequel will do.

a_big_house
15th Sep 2013, 19:12
That's not what I meant at all.

pidipidi39
15th Sep 2013, 20:24
Well everyone isn't as much skilled as the king of Multiplayer developer DICE. :cool:
Meh, DICE should stick to ME. lol


That's not what I meant at all.
But it's what you wrote.

a_big_house
15th Sep 2013, 21:54
But it's what you wrote.

Erm, no it's not. Nowhere in my post do I mention anything to do with a release date.

Shaikh said it. Not me.

Driber
15th Sep 2013, 22:58
I don't think Pidi was trying to make you look dumb, ABH :)


cant remember hearing bad things about the game length

Plenty of people posted saying that the campaign was too short.


about the story i have and i pretty much agree. the story had its flaws but the really big issue is, how poorly the side characters have been explained. but thats my view on it.

look at fear 3. because they focused so much on coop, it was really a shooting gallery and no horror at all. yes, it still explained the story about alma but gameplay wise was just not the same anymore.
or even orcs must die 2. the levels were designed for 2 players. playing them alone was really hard because you dont have enough resourced to cover enough ground.

I haven't played those other games you mentioned, so I cannot comment on that, but as far as TR goes - you just proved my point.

TR9's MP was entirely outsourced and still you think the story should have been better.

So the age-old cliché argument that "MP hurts the quality of SP" can be thrown right out of the window as far as I'm concerned.

Rai
15th Sep 2013, 23:49
Are we absolutely sure this is for TR10?

Whatever, it's a big fat MEH from me. I have no interest in MP. My only interest is to worry that with CD in control of both the single player and the MP rather than giving a company like Eidos Montreal (?) who did MP for TR'13 is that a lot of the focus will go to MP and SP will suffer as a result. And for all that is good, I hope hope that there isn't an obligatory co-op mode added in to it. The Single player has to remain Single player and MP/co-op remaining completely optional as it is now.

a_big_house
15th Sep 2013, 23:50
Nevermind, Rai beat me to it

Driber
16th Sep 2013, 00:02
...a lot of the focus will go to MP and SP will suffer as a result.

You don't know that.

a_big_house
16th Sep 2013, 00:03
But it is a possibility :cool:

Rai
16th Sep 2013, 00:58
You don't know that.

I know that it is a worry of mine, which is what I was saying.

pidipidi39
16th Sep 2013, 01:10
Erm, no it's not. Nowhere in my post do I mention anything to do with a release date.

Shaikh said it. Not me.
Like Driber said, I obviously wasn't trying to make you look dumb :)

I just meant (I could have expressed myself bad) that from what you wrote in the first place, it was easy to understand what Shaikh understood :)


Plenty of people posted saying that the campaign was too short.
I don't know but it is indeed short, at least IMO.
It's very intense tho.


Whatever, it's a big fat MEH from me. I have no interest in MP. My only interest is to worry that with CD in control of both the single player and the MP rather than giving a company like Eidos Montreal (?) who did MP for TR'13 is that a lot of the focus will go to MP and SP will suffer as a result. And for all that is good, I hope hope that there isn't an obligatory co-op mode added in to it. The Single player has to remain Single player and MP/co-op remaining completely optional as it is now.
I mostly agree with you :D
But I think that if CD will organize their time/resources well, they could be able to make it :) So give them a chance.
Obviously as long as they keep SP and MP/Co-op separated.

a_big_house
16th Sep 2013, 01:27
Like Driber said, I obviously wasn't trying to make you look dumb :)

I just meant (I could have expressed myself bad) that from what you wrote in the first place, it was easy to understand what Shaikh understood :)

Yes, the dumb comment was a misunderstanding on my part :)

And it's easy to understand if you take into account his BS comment about TR10 being in prod for 20 months :hmm:

I was merely stating that this point in development, they should be thinking about the SP and how they can expand on what TR9 established with the reboot. Thinking about MP is unnecessary at this time :)
(In a less expansive manner)

Shaikh
16th Sep 2013, 05:19
Are we absolutely sure this is for TR10?

No but this line "highly rated (AAA) action-adventure titles or 3rd person shooter titles" goes only with Tomb Raider since CrystalD has no already highly rated game in the works. They have only new IP, which can't be highly rated unless its previous games came out sometime. :p



Whatever, it's a big fat MEH from me. I have no interest in MP. My only interest is to worry that with CD in control of both the single player and the MP rather than giving a company like Eidos Montreal (?) who did MP for TR'13 is that a lot of the focus will go to MP and SP will suffer as a result. And for all that is good, I hope hope that there isn't an obligatory co-op mode added in to it. The Single player has to remain Single player and MP/co-op remaining completely optional as it is now.
If they hire new developer and works it inhouse then they can dismiss a lot of hassle. Remember, Eidos Montreal is from Montreal, Canada while Crystal Dynamics in California, USA. So there's lot of distance and some of the devs have to go there and here every now and then to share game development process. And if they develop it this time inhouse, they can reduce this hassle.

And if sufficient new developers arrives to develop the Multiplayer mode, then it doesn't effect the SP at all. And in my opinion, if they works on two modes, then they can get more ideas for the game, like whether they should introduce a new gameplay mechanics or not. :)

AdobeArtist
16th Sep 2013, 06:45
IKR? TR9 SP is very well polished where MP has some minor bugs. I always have this feeling that the MP could have been much better if CrystalD developed it instead of a very small part of EM. :)

Good to see they are keeping MP, being positive about it and developed it from the mistakes of TR9 MP. :)


It can be argued that the reason the SP was so polished is because one studio (CD) was completely focused on that, and that alone. All the detail and production value in the campaign is a testament to the painstaking and meticulous attention it was given, the immense work of man hours and dedicated scrutinizing of every little detail that went behind its development.

Basically what can only be cultivated from 100% allocation of all resources towards one project goal.

When I first heard about MP inclusion, I was very apprehensive with the concern how it would impact the campaign experience. However as soon as I heard that the MP component was being handled by a different team, I breathed a sigh of relief.

That meant even if it failed as a new endeavor to the series, at least it would have no impact on the quality of the SP campaign, knowing that the primary team CD wasn't being diverted from the campaign to work on the MP. I liked that CD's attention was entirely where it should be.


Have you thought that having people from CD themselves working on MP could be a good thing for the quality of MP, compared to completely outsourcing it? ;)


Now maybe CD can (hypothetically) do a better job than EM on making a multiplayer component. That remains to be seen.

But can we then ignore how this division of their focus and resources will impact the quality of the campaign they have recently raised to such a high standard?

Jurre
17th Sep 2013, 09:36
But can we then ignore how this division of their focus and resources will impact the quality of the campaign they have recently raised to such a high standard?
If you'll remember: Guardian of Light was made during the the development of Tr9; and it obviously didn't harm the development of the Tr9 SP campaign... same goes for that other game that Crystal D was working on, that many people speculated to be a Legacy of Kain game. Although I haven't heard from it in ages and I guess it's probably cancelled...?

I think it's just a matter of hiring more people and expanding the team if another project is started. And I think many people who work on a game like this are specialists: movement animators, character designers, landscape designers and so on; I don't think they can just be assigned to another job outside their field...

In any way: I have said many times before that I enjoyed the multiplayer very much, despite it's obvious flaws. I have spend a lot of hours with it. So if it returns in an improved version I welcome it with open arms...

Driber
17th Sep 2013, 10:31
But it is a possibility :cool:

Anything is a possibility.


I know that it is a worry of mine, which is what I was saying.

I wouldn't worry too much. CD knows that the SP campaign is the most important part of TR. MP brings in more people, but it's SP that makes or breaks a TR game.


I don't know but it is indeed short, at least IMO.
It's very intense tho.

True. Because the game is very fast-paced, it may seem that it is short, while in reality there is a LOT of content. It just moved by very rapidly.

I'd like to introduce the following analogy:

Would you hate an intense, adrenaline inducing roller coaster ride in a theme park because the tracks were only 600 meters long instead of the average 1KM for roller coasters?

Heh.


I mostly agree with you :D
But I think that if CD will organize their time/resources well, they could be able to make it :) So give them a chance.

Yup, I'd say it's indeed more about how resources are managed, rather than how many resources are available.

Take your typical government department for example - huge man power, but a big overhead and there's little work done :D


I was merely stating that this point in development, they should be thinking about the SP and how they can expand on what TR9 established with the reboot. Thinking about MP is unnecessary at this time :)
(In a less expansive manner)

If you already know you're going to implement MP in a game, then planning it and hiring people to manage it well right from the start would probably be a wise thing to do.

That would probably be a lot better approach then first working on the SP campaign for years and in the final couple of month scramble to hire people to tag on a MP mode.


It can be argued that the reason the SP was so polished is because one studio (CD) was completely focused on that, and that alone. All the detail and production value in the campaign is a testament to the painstaking and meticulous attention it was given, the immense work of man hours and dedicated scrutinizing of every little detail that went behind its development.

Basically what can only be cultivated from 100% allocation of all resources towards one project goal.

When I first heard about MP inclusion, I was very apprehensive with the concern how it would impact the campaign experience. However as soon as I heard that the MP component was being handled by a different team, I breathed a sigh of relief.

That meant even if it failed as a new endeavor to the series, at least it would have no impact on the quality of the SP campaign, knowing that the primary team CD wasn't being diverted from the campaign to work on the MP. I liked that CD's attention was entirely where it should be.

As said, it's all about how you set up your teams and how you manage your available resources.

Having one studio doing both MP and SP can be a disadvantage if you don't manage it well, or it could be a advantage if you know how to keep the separate teams focused on their respective tasks.


Now maybe CD can (hypothetically) do a better job than EM on making a multiplayer component. That remains to be seen.


But can we then ignore how this division of their focus and resources will impact the quality of the campaign they have recently raised to such a high standard?

Yes, it remains to be seen, that's a given since the game is not out yet. Hence why I -- unlike you -- wrote "could" and not "will."

I myself have no reason to be pessimistic this early on, judging by what a smashing job CD did with TR9 :cool:


If you'll remember: Guardian of Light was made during the the development of Tr9; and it obviously didn't harm the development of the Tr9 SP campaign... same goes for that other game that Crystal D was working on, that many people speculated to be a Legacy of Kain game. Although I haven't heard from it in ages and I guess it's probably cancelled...?

CD had to scale back and there are now less people working on the unannounced IP.

As for the new LOK game - CD is not working on that, another studio is.


I think it's just a matter of hiring more people and expanding the team if another project is started. And I think many people who work on a game like this are specialists: movement animators, character designers, landscape designers and so on; I don't think they can just be assigned to another job outside their field...

Exactly.

xRenzGx
17th Sep 2013, 11:35
Looking forward!

pidipidi39
17th Sep 2013, 12:57
I was merely stating that this point in development, they should be thinking about the SP and how they can expand on what TR9 established with the reboot. Thinking about MP is unnecessary at this time :)
(In a less expansive manner)
Oh, got you now :)

However I still think that it's better if they think about everything at the beginning, and then build :D


True. Because the game is very fast-paced, it may seem that it is short, while in reality there is a LOT of content. It just moved by very rapidly.

I'd like to introduce the following analogy:

Would you hate an intense, adrenaline inducing roller coaster ride in a theme park because the tracks were only 600 meters long instead of the average 1KM for roller coasters?

Heh.

I would go for the 600 meters one.

BTW, one thing I loved about TR9 was the fast paced gameplay/storyline :D
If it would have been ''calmer'' I wouldn't have liked it that much.

The best would be a fast-paced AND long game :p (but obviously that would take a lot of time to be made)


Yup, I'd say it's indeed more about how resources are managed, rather than how many resources are available.
Totally! And I think CD gained a lot of experience in how to manage resources and stuff with TR9 :)

Driber
17th Sep 2013, 15:34
Totally! And I think CD gained a lot of experience in how to manage resources and stuff with TR9 :)

Unlike the rest of the 20 years they've been around?

:p

pidipidi39
17th Sep 2013, 19:34
Unlike the rest of the 20 years they've been around?

:p
LOL
You know what I meant :p

And, I'm talking about the Tomb Raider series.
TR9 has been an HUGE step from the LAU trilogy ... they've got really better :)

DrCroft
28th Sep 2013, 13:05
Ah...I still pray for local co-op :D

MaxRaider
29th Sep 2013, 18:39
I would be very interested in a co-op mode. It would bring a whole new dynamic to the game that might actually be fun. :)

pirate1802
29th Sep 2013, 19:00
The best would be a fast-paced AND long game :p (but obviously that would take a lot of time to be made)

But the thing is though, fast-paced games only work when they are relatively short. Over my few years of gaming I've seen that there are games which are longer but slower-paced these are generally nonlinear. And then you have fast-paced but shorter game, of generally linear nature. That's because after a certain limit the fast pace starts to lose their charm. Either the pace starts slacking off, or you start to get bored. This happened to me in Bioshock Infinite. The middle part was great, but towards the end I felt the game was too long by a couple of hours, and its pace slacked off because of too many unnecessary fights we could have done without, imo.

nevillet
30th Sep 2013, 00:00
But the thing is though, fast-paced games only work when they are relatively short. Over my few years of gaming I've seen that there are games which are longer but slower-paced these are generally nonlinear. And then you have fast-paced but shorter game, of generally linear nature. That's because after a certain limit the fast pace starts to lose their charm. Either the pace starts slacking off, or you start to get bored. This happened to me in Bioshock Infinite. The middle part was great, but towards the end I felt the game was too long by a couple of hours, and its pace slacked off because of too many unnecessary fights we could have done without, imo.

So, the moral is: Don't extend gameplay by simply adding more fights.

Keep the core story tight and linear, but allow non-linear side-quests everywhere. Then the player can choose their own pace and length.

pirate1802
30th Sep 2013, 03:51
So, the moral is: Don't extend gameplay by simply adding more fights.

Keep the core story tight and linear, but allow non-linear side-quests everywhere. Then the player can choose their own pace and length.

yes. I might add that TR was a case of this done right, imo. The fights never got boring because the solarii always had interesting stuff to say, you know.. things that made you believe they are not just there of get killed by the player. I'd listen to their talks, then distract/headshot them. :p But if the game was 2-3 hours longer, who knows? Might have gotten stale.

SuMzz
2nd Oct 2013, 03:38
Indeed.

I always wondered how the combat platforming etc felt silky smooth in the SP, almost perfect but felt very cumbesome and cluttered in the MP. Never was able to put my fingers on why it was so, but this may be it. CD developing MP may mean the MP would be as silky :p

Anyway, good to see they are not ditching the MP after the negative response. If you stick with it, you may succeed, while there is no chance of succeeding if ye give up!

You know, why did the multiplayer fail? I love it honestly. The only thing I don't like about it is when I can only win cause I have a bow. But now I have bows for both my side of teams

a_big_house
3rd Oct 2013, 08:49
^ Haven't you heard? The entire game failed :naughty:

sanriela
4th Oct 2013, 08:02
There is no mistakes in the MP mode. The whole idea for MP is the BIG mistake.

EliParker
8th Oct 2013, 13:18
My two cents, MP should have never been added to Tomb Raider. So now that both CD and SE want MP in future Tomb Raiders, CD need to have an arcade type mode. By having arcade mode the game could last longer for people that want SP type modes.

So please add single player type modes for future Tomb Raiders.

Weemanply109
8th Oct 2013, 23:28
Did Crystal develop the Multiplayer components (Co-op) in GoL? If so then I have much more hope for them in this case. Nothing generic and I'll be happy. :)

larafan25
9th Oct 2013, 03:52
GOL was all Crystal I believe.

Driber
9th Oct 2013, 07:20
Yup, GOL was just CD. The only other studio involved was Nixxes doing PC (and PS3) porting as usual.

a_big_house
9th Oct 2013, 07:51
Crystal and Nixxes should just merge

Driber
9th Oct 2013, 08:23
Crystal and Nixxes should just merge

CD isn't the only studio that Nixxes collaborates with.

Sefin
9th Oct 2013, 09:19
to be honest I did not understand why MP failed. I tried few rounds and it is fun. Slower paced. Fun with traps etc. I think the killer is way low player base. Therefore it is hard as hell to get into actual game.

as for the SP part I can´t wait for new TR :-) I only hope they will keep the same basics as in TR9 and only make it more "survival" I want limited ammunition, no auto heal and more more tombs with harder puzzles - lets fry our brain! :-)

a_big_house
9th Oct 2013, 09:35
CD isn't the only studio that Nixxes collaborates with.

Exactly, if CD steals Nixxes, then they either get more work (the work that Nixxes would get) OR they keep the assets to themselves screwing up all the other devs and ruling the dev world!

:D

Diaren
10th Oct 2013, 14:43
I certainly looked at the multiplayer from TR9 and was disappointed to see that it did not appeal to me as a long term Tombraider player/customer... So first and foremost:

TR10 Multiplayer: Requirement 1
Must appeal to the long term Tombrader customers, who are accustomed to Single Player.

If they can nail that requirement, then I can't wait to try out the new multiplayer... If not then, add some SP stuff, that will give the game some longevity... please.

Jurre
10th Oct 2013, 19:19
Then how exactly should the multiplayer be to appeal to you?

I mean, to say: 'it must appeal to me' is not exactly something the developers can work with, right?

larafan25
10th Oct 2013, 20:39
It needs to appeal to Tomb Raider fans and convince the outer world that Tomb Raider and multiplayer is not some cheap cash-in.

The non-deathmatch modes in TR9 have context to the TOMB RAIDER lore, but it's specific to the TOMB RAIDER lore, not the overall Tomb Raider lore. You know? People don't expect Tomb Raider to be about radio signals and healing survivors, that's a theme which is decidedly contextual to TR9 and no past (or maybe even future) Tomb Raider. Therefore non-deathmatch modes need to have a goal which is more relevant to what Tomb Raider is know for and to what the fans enjoy it for. More classic-looking puzzle-solving schemes and trap-evading. There are many ways to make a multiplayer experience out of Tomb Raider. One of them is by making the players raid tombs.

Lara raids tombs in TR1, as she raids these tombs she has occasional run-ins with Larson and Pierre, other tomb raiders who are supposedly raiding different parts of the tomb. Why not a Classic mode in which the maps are more complexly designed? They don't need to be a linear driving level like classic levels, but take all of that designed complexity and put it inside a map that flows circularly, like most TDM or CTF maps. Give players the simple objective to raid the tomb and uncover the treasure. Then it becomes a classic race for the treasure as you raid the tomb and have occasional or constant run-ins with other players in the match.

The biggest limitation with puzzle-solving or collecting in Tomb Raider multiplayer is the fact that it loses it's appeal once you've played it a couple times. Perhaps puzzle items and quest items spawn randomly? Or perhaps the quest item (which wins a match upon retrieval) always spawns in the same chamber, but some combinable key-type items spawn randomly? No different to medpacks which might spawn randomly. If these puzzle pieces are combinable as in the classics then a player needs both pieces to progress through a certain path, and perhaps another player has another piece of the puzzle so you chase em down?

It's limitless. Tomb Raider's multiplayer can look, feel and be Tomb Raider. It doesn't even need a death-match, though I'm not ever opposed to one (as long as the TDM is symmetrically balanced).

pirate1802
11th Oct 2013, 02:16
Make rock climbing races, or competitive relic hunt modes. Little things like that can be much ore interesting that (imo) standard deathmatch stuff. Also would feel more appropriate for a tomb raider game.

Sefin
11th Oct 2013, 09:11
hmm I like idea of both posts above mine. It would really make sense to make some objectives which does not even need killing people :-) As the devs stated in their final hours for TR2013 this would lead to true tomb raiding together :-)

Chocolate_shake
12th Oct 2013, 12:52
I'm not against the concept of multi player but the execution of the idea in the last game .

There should be modes that justify the title of the game they are in . Simply making a "fun" generic death match fare is not worth spending energy and resources . TR9 multi player proved that.

Possibilities are endless , the team just needs to (maybe ought to ) have a more creative focus this time around .

kiadaw
22nd Oct 2013, 08:45
They made some unlockable costume, subtle upgrades or something that can be used in the SP, (instead of paying for them), I could maybe care to play.

But I will wait for more information before passing judgement.

kiadaw
22nd Oct 2013, 08:52
Maybe a loot base MP ( A little like say Diablo boss raid), at the end of each raiding session, you have the chance for some goodies that enhance your stats, , say some charm ala Guardian of light, or unlock some colors, skins, some accessories like watches, necklaces etc, which you can use in higher difficulties SP gameplay, or MP.

Woogiemush
9th Jan 2014, 16:03
I think that Tomb Raider 9's multiplayer was fun. But it was very unstable and unpolished. It's almost impossible to play now on Tomb Raider since everyone is a higher level then you. :rolleyes:

You guy's should ask Naughty Dog for help. They make amazing multiplayer games, and if you guy's get a good story and a polished game just like Tomb Raider 9, perfect scores could be coming in.

P.S. remove the multiplayer achievement/trophies...

Tecstar70
9th Jan 2014, 16:19
I enjoyed the MP. Was good to drop in on for some quick games. I'd happily play more.