PDA

View Full Version : For LEGEND to be good!...It needs.....



Futura
20th Oct 2005, 08:17
For me Last Revelation' has been the best Lara so far.

It's hard for the game makers to keep getting the equation for Lara right...needless to say they want to upgrade the experience etc. They are allowed to do that....but.....if they want to make it work, in my book there is a simple secret!!

Offer service first to the fans.

The last couple of Lara incarnations been gimmicky, short and look like 'market force planning' to extract minimum bang for our buck.

Remember all those first Lara Games done in Derbyshire England by a small gang of dedicated enthusiasts who lovingly gave us enormous games that would go on for months and months before we ever got near the end.

What's the bet Legend is a short experience Like the Angel of Darkness!!!

Even if they give us movement more like the older games; which we want, part of the experience for the real fans is an adventure that is so long and winding that in order to remember it all you just have to do it again when you finish....cos it's just to big to hold in your head.

It doesn't have to be flashy or extra real looking just give us a big world we can drown in!!!!!

For LEGEND to be good!..... It needs to be...... LONG

KHollister
20th Oct 2005, 12:34
Gimmicky! That's definitely the word to describe TR Chronicles and TR AOD...

And you're definitely right about the whole experience. I started TR with Version 3, and it took me months to finish -- and when I did, I definitely felt I received what I paid for. Version 2 and 4 were the same way.

TR Chronicles started the downfall, though. I think what happened is that Eidos hyped "TR Next Generation" so much, so pushed out something quickly trying to appease fans. The gimmick there was to alter Lara's backstory and make her a bratty little girl -- not something I appreciated.

TR AOD was gimmicky, too -- we received a dark, brooding, depressed Lara, which given the story of AOD, was understandable. But having to improve your strength by pushing blocks or be stuck at a certain spot was something I didn't like, either.

Then again, perhaps Eidos and fans have learned something from the last few versions of TR. I know some fans (not me) thought it was getting boring -- so Eidos departed from the main theme of the game, which was raiding tombs. Now fans are ready to get back to the basics again -- hence the 'back to her roots' approach that Eidos is taking.

And part of that approach definitely needs to be a large environment to interact in -- something where I could play the same level over and over, and still be interested each time I play it...

Trinity34
20th Oct 2005, 13:36
For me Last Revelation' has been the best Lara so far.

It's hard for the game makers to keep getting the equation for Lara right...needless to say they want to upgrade the experience etc. They are allowed to do that....but.....if they want to make it work, in my book there is a simple secret!!

Offer service first to the fans.

The last couple of Lara incarnations been gimmicky, short and look like 'market force planning' to extract minimum bang for our buck.

Remember all those first Lara Games done in Derbyshire England by a small gang of dedicated enthusiasts who lovingly gave us enormous games that would go on for months and months before we ever got near the end.

What's the bet Legend is a short experience Like the Angel of Darkness!!!

Even if they give us movement more like the older games; which we want, part of the experience for the real fans is an adventure that is so long and winding that in order to remember it all you just have to do it again when you finish....cos it's just to big to hold in your head.

It doesn't have to be flashy or extra real looking just give us a big world we can drown in!!!!!

For LEGEND to be good!..... It needs to be...... LONG


Hi Futura.
Welcome to the forum. :)

If you look at the screenshots from Legend it looks like the environments are huge and I think from one of the interviews it was mentioned that there would only be 8 - 10 levels. My question is this..... would you rather have fewer levels but have huge environments or have smaller environments and more levels?

CatSuit&Ponytail
20th Oct 2005, 14:40
would you rather have fewer levels but have huge environments or have smaller environments and more levels?

Fewer levels, huge environments. By huge environments, I mean huge and explorable, not merely large areas with the path spelled out for you and invisible walls and such nonsense. :) Long game. I also want that. :)

Trinity34
20th Oct 2005, 14:43
Hi :)

I guess I am trying to figure out what people think of as a "long" game.

WraithStar
20th Oct 2005, 14:44
I agree that there shouldn't be invisible walls. I do tend to get lost *very* easily, so if the huge level is confusing, there should be a map that shows exactly where Lara is compared to obvious landmarks (which the player wouldn't have to use if he/she preferred to just explore without any help).

Nowadays, most new games I've played are 15 hours or less, so I'd consider a "long" game to take approximately 25 hours to complete the first time through (without the game requiring tedious and time-consuming tasks that only serve to increase the game-play time they can brag about...). For reference, each of the first three TR games took me about 25 hours to win (not counting time taken when I died and reloaded), even with peeking at a walkthrough every now and then, so I'd consider the first three TR games to be long. TR4 got very frustrating for me because of all of the backtracking, so I don't want Legend to be long just because of something like that.

CatSuit&Ponytail
20th Oct 2005, 14:53
Hi :)

I guess I am trying to figure out what people think of as a "long" game.
I just yesterday finished Gothic2, and had been playing it for months. That was tasty. :) But I know there's this perception by developers that a game should be able to be finished in a "timely" manner. I want a game that challanges my mind and keyboard, not just my graphic card. ;)

CatSuit&Ponytail
20th Oct 2005, 14:56
TR4 got very frustrating for me because of all of the backtracking, so I don't want Legend to be long just because of something like that.
That's a good point. The length of the game should be based on quality of gameplay, not just fluff FedEx stuff.

CaninD
20th Oct 2005, 20:05
...it needs to ditch that stupid "hand" icon from AOD. I am edumacated enuf to figure things out myself.

Mangar The Dark
20th Oct 2005, 20:34
...it needs to ditch that stupid "hand" icon from AOD. I am edumacated enuf to figure things out myself.

I'm still baffled by the fact that so many people hated that hand. How did it really ruin the experience? In TR1-3, you always knew what you could use because pretty much every lever looked the same. By the time AOD came around, there was more variety, so the hand just saved you from wasting time trying activate things that couldn't be activated. To me, it was no different than how graphic adventures have pointers that react to the environment to tell you when an object can used (and I would HATE to play a game like Syberia without such a feature. I remember doing that with the original Maniac Mansion and Zak McKracken... I had a lot more patience back then!)

jay2
20th Oct 2005, 21:19
for the real fans is an adventure that is so long and winding that in order to remember it all you just have to do it again when you finish....cos it's just to big to hold in your head.

That quote say's it all.I could not have put it better myself.

CaninD
21st Oct 2005, 13:16
The hand, in my opinion, is a dumbing down of the game. It's very untrue that you always knew what push, pull or hit, that was part of the puzzle. Would you like to buy a puzzle with numbers on the back of each piece with a map? I don't pay 50 bux for a game that I can just blow through in no time because it, no pun intended, holds my hand every step of the way. Kinda like Kurtis showing me the numbers…could that have been any easier? Booooooring…. Personally, I think many people complained to whomever about “the game being too hard” and they capitulated by putting in the hand…

WraithStar
21st Oct 2005, 15:15
I am pretty sure there won't be a hand icon in Legend. From the gameplay demo and what I've heard about it so far, the puzzles will be environment and physics based and if the player runs in circles for awhile without getting anywhere, Lara will give subtle hints like looking in the direction she needs to go in.

Mangar The Dark
21st Oct 2005, 15:17
The hand, in my opinion, is a dumbing down of the game. It's very untrue that you always knew what push, pull or hit, that was part of the puzzle.

For me, the puzzle shouldn't necessarily be recongizing WHAT can be used, it should be knowing HOW and WHEN to use it. The hand icon did not remove this element of the puzzles. It simply said, "Hey, here's something you could activate." In the original game, pretty much every switch looked identical (a pull down handle.) So, there was no question of whether or not it could be used-- as soon as you saw one of those pull-down handles, you knew it was something you could use, and that was fine because it kept things from getting tedious. In AOD, the switches had more variety, but the hand icon was used so that the player could recognize useable switches, just as they could in the first game. The puzzle of when and how to use them still remained intact, so really nothing was changed.

I guess since I play a lot of graphic adventures, I'm used to the idea of icons telling me when an object can be used.

If Legend does not have the Hand Icon, I hope it is at least forgiving about how you line up your character in front of useable object. One of the most annoying things in a game is when you're stumped because you think an object cannot be used, and then you find out that you were just standing a few pixels away from where the game wanted you to be standing in order to use that object.

WraithStar
21st Oct 2005, 15:20
From what I've seen in the gameplay trailer, the game is definitely much more forgiving when it comes to lining up jumps. I would imagine it is also much more forgiving when it comes to lining Lara up to pick up an object or move something, too:)

susan
22nd Oct 2005, 22:09
... if the player runs in circles for awhile without getting anywhere, Lara will give subtle hints like looking in the direction she needs to go in.When I see that Crystal are implementing stuff like this and Lara saying after only 5 mintutes of searching, "This doesn't seem right", it reminds of Ripley in Aliens - "Have IQ's just dropped suddenly since we all played TR1/2/3/4?"

Is TR an game of puzzles and exploration and using your mind or not? Half the fun is getting stuck for hours, not minutes. I'd like to work it out myself.


For LEGEND to be good!..... It needs to be...... LONGCouldn't agree more. The 10-12 hours gameplay quoted is ridiculously short for a TR game and imo a rip-off for any game priced at £30.

CaninD
23rd Oct 2005, 01:53
Hence my 2 cents on the "hand" icon Susan, you're right on! I just feel that the game has been dubmed down a bit...

susan
23rd Oct 2005, 09:56
Hence my 2 cents on the "hand" icon Susan, you're right on! I just feel that the game has been dubmed down a bit... :thumbsup:

I think (hope) they're not using this in Legend, but I wish they wouldn't use any "hints" including twinkling lights to highlight objects to pick up and tips from some non-necessary back-up team ( :rolleyes: ).

Mangar The Dark
24th Oct 2005, 00:39
:thumbsup:

I think (hope) they're not using this in Legend, but I wish they wouldn't use any "hints" including twinkling lights to highlight objects to pick up and tips from some non-necessary back-up team ( :rolleyes: ).

I completely agree that they shouldn't give too many clues to make the puzzles too easy. Have you ever played "Timeline"?? That is a fine example of how NOT to design puzzles in a game. On every level, your computer controlled partner stood by and told you EXACTLY what you needed to do to solve every puzzle. After a while I started to wonder why my partner just didn't do it herself!

But, highlighting important items in some way could be a good thing. A good puzzle should not involve pixel hunting. Games like "The Longest Journey" and "Syberia" and even older ones like "Grim Fandango" always let you know when an action can be performed, and yet these games are not overly easy. The trick is, the designers managed to make the puzzles tough without resorting to the cheap trick of hiding something important by letting it blend in with the backdrop.

As graphics become more and more advanced, it's easier for important items to blend in with the background. When the original TR came out in 1996, useable objects and pickups stood out like sore thumbs. Today, advances in graphics allow such things to blend in more seamlessly, which looks better, but can also make it tougher for the player. If that's the case with Legend, then I don't think a hand-icon is dumbing down the game at all, I think it's merely keeping it consistant with the previous games (in other words, it's the designer's way of saying, "Since this object isn't as easy to spot as it used to be, we'll give you a clue to keep it fair.")

But again, I do agree that they should not dumb down the gameplay. The question is really just whether or not a hand icon (or whatever) really DOES dumb it down. In AOD, I didn't feel that it did.

susan
24th Oct 2005, 08:12
But again, I do agree that they should not dumb down the gameplay. The question is really just whether or not a hand icon (or whatever) really DOES dumb it down. In AOD, I didn't feel that it did.I agree the game's puzzles shouldn't boil down to a pixel hunt. I thought previous TR's managed the balance on this OK. Sometimes it was obvious what to use (chunky levers) and other times stuff was hidden in dark corners or was small and almost indistinguishable from the surroundings. Then in AoD suddenly we need a blinking off-on green light for health, red for ammo and blue for "other" pickups. Wtf?!! :D Seemed to me like someone worked out how to do this effect and it looked ... pretty ... so they put it in.

Anything that reminds me it's only a game reduces the fun. The hand does this. Somehow it's just more realistic (and immersive) the other TR ways.

And, for me the hand is dumbing the game down because it makes it easier to detect useful things. Does it need to be easier in Legend because the objects are too hidden due to the great graphics? I'd prefer it if they used the solution you mentioned earlier - "I hope it is at least forgiving about how you line up your character in front of useable object." But we'll see.

I haven't played Timeline but I did see the film ( :rolleyes: ). The book was great though, I am a bit of a Crichton fan. :D

Xxx_Lara_xxX
24th Oct 2005, 15:12
I considered the sparkling objects and hand icon to be a serious dumbing-down of the gameplay -- although the 'pixel-hunt' aspect could be avoided in part if they would color objects to stand out from the surroundings, or were larger than in real life so that you can see them, or moved (ie Metal Gear Solid) but the hand pointing to the itty-bitty yet shimmering object "pick me up! pick me up!" was just too much. I am also a big fan of having some 'very obvious' pick ups which are right there in front of you, and a few hidden pick ups that blend in with the surroundings that you have to search for a bit (ie exploring behind rocks and trees, in bushes) but the little glow-sparkle thing was terrible

Especially since TR is based on the idea of immersion and discovery -- surely there must be a better way! :)

Mangar The Dark
24th Oct 2005, 17:03
What did the rest of you think of Galleon's system? In it, an icon would flash more rapidly as you got closer to an important item. In a way, I suppose it was "dumbing down" the gameplay, but it actually made things kind of interesting. In a lot of cases, the icon would be flashing very rapidly, so you knew you were close to where you needed to be, but some obstacle prevented you from getting there. So, in a way, it teased the player while also keeping things fair (sometimes, for example, you might be next to a locked door, and your icon would be flashing intensely, so you KNEW the object you needed was just beyond that door, but the trick was in trying to open that door, or to find another way around it.) I thought it worked pretty well, and I wouldn't mind something like that in Legend.

Xxx_Lara_xxX
24th Oct 2005, 17:57
That would be better than color-coded twinkling objects! Half eaten candy bars on the floor and bottles of cognac usually don't magically sparkle, at least from my experience.

I think a good way to let us know that an object can be picked up would be to put a sort of sheen on it -- so when you walk past, it changes slightly in color tone. I do not mean 'sparkle twinkle lights'!! If anyone remembers walking past the dragon doors at the end of TR2 with a flare, or the TV screens in the black catsuit level of TR Chronicles, those had a sort of 'reflective sheen' ... I think that would be perfect for pick up objects -- to make them stand out but not be stupidly obvious, as graphics have improved to the point where objects could blend in perfectly, but then how would we see them?
There is definitely a 'treasure hunt' aspect to Tomb Raider, where the player has to search for objects for Lara, but these objects shouldn't be so well-disguised as to be invisible/ non-intuitive, nor so obvious as to be blatant and routine and insulting

Because there is an element of surprise and satisfaction in exploring tombs and discovering things! :cool:

susan
24th Oct 2005, 19:40
There is definitely a 'treasure hunt' aspect to Tomb Raider, where the player has to search for objects for Lara, but these objects shouldn't be so well-disguised as to be invisible/ non-intuitive, nor so obvious as to be blatant and routine and insulting:thumbsup: Totally agree Xxx_Lara_xxX.

I also think the reflective sheen (when Lara uses a flare) works well for extremely well hidden/non-intuitive items.

I haven't played Galleon (no Xbox) but, although it sounds like it worked well for that game, I'd prefer the items not to be flashing in TR.

Mangar The Dark
24th Oct 2005, 20:06
:I haven't played Galleon (no Xbox) but, although it sounds like it worked well for that game, I'd prefer the items not to be flashing in TR.

The items didn't flash in Galleon, the icon flashed when you were getting near an item you needed. It was kind of like having a homing device, I guess. The game explained it by saying Rhama (the main character) has kind of a sixth sense about these things, and so he can determine when he's getting close to something he needs. A contrived explanation, yes, but it worked pretty well for the game.

Mangar The Dark
24th Oct 2005, 20:10
How about the ultimate (and simplest) solution to this whole dilemma-- an options menu that allows players to turn on or off the hint system?


Getting back to Galleon again (sorry!), aside from the flashing icon thing, the game also had a built in hint system, but you had to ask for the hints, they weren't shoved down your throat. So, if you were really stuck you could press a button and get a hint (not a solution, a hint.) But if you preferred to figure it out on your own, you could. Again, it's something that could work well in TR, I think. Supposedly she has a tech team that provides hints, right? So if the tech team remains quiet until the player actually asks for their assistance, I don't think anyone could object to that.

susan
24th Oct 2005, 20:40
Oh I see! I wouldn't mind something like this in a completely new game with it's new "rules" of what's permitted in that reality, but ... my personal taste, and experience of the TR universe as I know it, is that a flashing icon wouldn't work.


How about the ultimate (and simplest) solution to this whole dilemma-- an options menu that allows players to turn on or off the hint system?
Good idea, like turning on/off automatic/manual aim for the shooting. I always use auto, but I expect some people prefer the more realistic option of manual targeting.


So if the tech team remains quiet until the player actually asks for their assistance, I don't think anyone could object to that.*laughs* Really?

For me, just having the tech team "there" changes the atmosphere of the game. Lara's no longer on her own ... Which could mean that lovely experience of isolation in lonely places is significantly reduced (or lost completely). Hopefully not because having the team in Legend appears to be a fait accompli.

Mangar The Dark
25th Oct 2005, 12:55
*laughs* Really?

For me, just having the tech team "there" changes the atmosphere of the game. Lara's no longer on her own ... Which could mean that lovely experience of isolation in lonely places is significantly reduced (or lost completely). Hopefully not because having the team in Legend appears to be a fait accompli.

Oh, can't please all the people all the time.
For me, the option of being able to ask the tech-team for help is no different than knowing you can log on to a website and look at a walkthrough when you're stuck, except that it's less cumbersome.

Still, I kind of know what you mean about that feeling of isolation that makes TR work, but I think it could still have that feeling. After all, the tech team won't be in the cave/tomb/whatever with her. Also, if Lara is able to interact with the tech team, it might allow for more opportunities for her personality to come through, and possibly more story elements (for example, what if you get used to relying on the tech support, and then suddenly, the connection is inexplicably cut off-- now you feel more isolated than ever because there's a contrast.)
Well, we'll have to wait and see how it's handled. I'm trying to remain optimistic.

tip
28th Oct 2005, 15:31
I agree that there shouldn't be invisible walls. I do tend to get lost *very* easily, so if the huge level is confusing, there should be a map that shows exactly where Lara is compared to obvious landmarks (which the player wouldn't have to use if he/she preferred to just explore without any help).

Nowadays, most new games I've played are 15 hours or less, so I'd consider a "long" game to take approximately 25 hours to complete the first time through (without the game requiring tedious and time-consuming tasks that only serve to increase the game-play time they can brag about...). For reference, each of the first three TR games took me about 25 hours to win (not counting time taken when I died and reloaded), even with peeking at a walkthrough every now and then, so I'd consider the first three TR games to be long. TR4 got very frustrating for me because of all of the backtracking, so I don't want Legend to be long just because of something like that.

Tomb Raider 4 was the only tomb raider i couldnt finish! with and without a walkthrough. I was stuck at the pyramids and the big flies. There was no way back and I had missed 1 of the three collectors. Ive tried the game 3 times, I always ended at the same spot. The rest of that game was awesome tho

ladylinnycroft
30th Oct 2005, 15:24
Although i really enjoyed AOD...for me it was spoilt by bugs...and the parisian streets backwards and forwards was extremely frustrating..but for the recent trailers i have seen Lara seems to be back to her good old self with all the old moves etc...i can't wait for the release...but the release date needs to be stuck with because a lot of lara's future depends on this game

Futura
2nd Nov 2005, 20:16
I think there has been some really insightful things said here.

I hope the manufacturers try to meet our needs.

Dumbing down is not the way to make anything popular in the long run.

People want a long game which is convoluted. They want challenges.

Marketing people are often the last folks to get any of this stuff right.

I suspect that in the present global climate our next Lara is going to be disappointing.

The gaming industry has stopped striving , they seem to have run out of adrenalin.

There hasnt been a game that has broken really new ground in quite a while.

The last Myst game is an insult to the fans, I really hope the next Lara isnt as well.

If it is it'll be the death of Lara.

However I'm being maybe too depressive.

Long live Lara that's what I want to say!!

Mangar The Dark
2nd Nov 2005, 20:49
People want a long game which is convoluted. They want challenges.



To an extent, I guess. But I have very little patience with games that are TOO challenging. I play games to relax, not to get annoyed. For example, I loved "Jade Empire" and "The Bard's Tale" recently on the XBox because they were fairly long games, but not overly challenging. Everytime I played them, I managed to make progress and see something new, and I rarely got killed, yet the games still took a decent length of time to complete (though "The Bard's Tale" for the Xbox took no where near as long as the original Bard's Tale took back in the 1980s.) I never want to feel really stuck in a game, because when I do, I have no incentive to play it. "Prince Of Persia: Sands of Time" was excellent until I reached a certain fight sequence. I have been stuck on this fight for months, and I just can't be bothered with it anymore. I hate having to abandon a good game because it just gets too challenging.

So, anyway, I don't want Legend to be too easy, but I do want to feel as though I'm always making progress and seeing new things, and I absolutely do not want to be stuck at a certain point because I don't have the reflexes to defeat a certain boss creature.

WraithStar
3rd Nov 2005, 15:29
I just finished replaying PoP:SoT yesterday. How far did you get into the game? I'm sure that on the PC version people can trade saves. Is that true of Xbox as well? Maybe you can get a save from someone that's just past whichever battle you got stuck on.

In response to whether or not games should be convoluted, I'd say no, they should not. A game should be complex and detailed. "Convoluted" implies that the game is needlessly confusing and it throws in twists just for the hell of it. A good story shouldn't come across as convoluted or confusing. At the end of it all, the player should say, "Well, I didn't see that coming, but looking back, it makes perfect sense."

susan
3rd Nov 2005, 16:18
I want to be challenged but not thwarted. I can't finish Jak 2 and it saddens me because it's such a beautiful and engrossing game.

But, I have a feeling I like my games harder than say Mangar. I found POP a breeze (I had played Jak 2 by this stage which made me a ninja-gamer ;) ).

I'd like Legend to be fairly difficult and long. Convoluted - yes please. :D I'll be disappointed if it's not similar length and difficulty as TR3 and TR4.

It'd be nice though if everyone was catered for, if there was some way to have difficulty settings that work for everyone. The future maybe??

Mangar The Dark
3rd Nov 2005, 21:00
Susan and Wraithstar--

Since you're the experts, I need your help. I'm stuck at about 32% into POP. I got the new sword, hacked my way through a wall, walked down some stairs beneath the palace, navigated a bunch jumps and climbs to get through a large room, turned a switch to open a door, hacked up some insects, crossed another series of jumps, climbed a ladder, and I'm now stuck in a room with some large enemies. I've been stuck in this room for months! I keep managing to hack through a large number of them, but it just seems never ending, so I always die before completing it. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I flung my game pad across the room and screamed obscenities at the television. I finally gave up on it because it's just too insanely difficult. Is there some technique to defeating these guys? A lot of time, I managed to turn them into sand in midair, but then I have no clue how to retrieve the sand, so while I'm fumbling around with that, another enemy hacks me to bits. (when I turn them to sand on the ground, it's no problem, but in the air, I can never figure out what to do. The buttons don't seem to work the same in that case.)

Oops, I guess this is a bit off topic. Still, any help would be great.

susan
4th Nov 2005, 04:34
Mangar, it's about the different types of attacks. If you're on the PS2 like me:


Blue enemies - need the wall rebound attack. Steer the prince towards the wall and then press X and square button at the same time. He'll rebound off onto the blue enemies and they normally go down straight away. Then press triangle to finish them.

If you can't get them near the wall, I find pressing square and X at the same time whilst they're nearby will often cause the prince to attack them ok anyway.


Red enemies - need to jump and attack. Press the cross button (with direction) to jump over their heads, and then press square whilst in the air to attack. When they go down, press triangle to finish them.
It's hectic but if you're calm and systematic in your attacks it's relatively easy. I only played POP once before and so I just replayed that bit to see what you were talking about. I managed it straight away.

... And trust me I have NO patience for mêlée fights at all. If I can do it ANYONE can.

Good luck. :D

Mangar The Dark
4th Nov 2005, 14:01
Thanks Susan! I'll give it a try. Usually what happens is I get surrounded, start to panic, and then just start pounding all the buttons and hoping for the best. It worked up until now, but I guess it's not the best technique! I never even noticed that enemies were color-coded (red and blue.) I'll have to look for that. And I never tried a wall rebound attack-- I'll have to check how to do them on the Xbox.

Anyway, to bring this back to a TR discussion before the mods start yelling at me....

If the Excalibur theory is right, and Lara is indeed on a quest for that sword, it would be kind of cool to see a melee combat system in Legend. I mean, how could you have a game revolving around a quest for a sword and then not let the player USE the sword? It would seem like a missed opportunity to bring something new to series. The final battle sequence of Legend could really stand out if it involves wielding the legendary sword against some massive enemy, rather than just shooting pistols.
(then again, considering how much I suck at melee combat in POP, maybe I shouldn't be hoping for such combat in Legend!)

WraithStar
4th Nov 2005, 18:21
It would be cool to have some melee combat in Legend :) I can't remember exactly, but I thought I read somewhere that there would be some melee combat. I don't know if it just meant where she slides into an enemy to knock him down like in the trailer, though.

Really quick about PoP:SoT -- Basically everything Susan said :D

To do a wall rebound, you have to have your sword out and be standing near a wall. Push the directional key towards the wall and hit the jump button. The prince should jump off of the wall and over a nearby enemy. Press attack to stab the enemy on the way down.

When you stab an upright enemy with the dagger, he turns into sand. What you have to do is press the attack button to slash the enemy with the sword. The enemy will float up into the air in slow motion. Then you have to hit attack again, and the prince will slice the enemy in half, destroying it. You do not get any sand from enemies this way, but if you have some sand to spare, it is useful for killing the blue enemies quickly without losing much health. Note--it uses the sand stored in the half-moons to the side of the sand tanks, not the actual sand you use to rewind time.

If you lose a lot of health rapidly, use a rewind and jump away from the enemies to give yourself a chance to react. The first time I played, I found myself losing health rapidly, and then desperately clinging to the last little shred for most of the battle. It's much easier to use rewinds towards the beginning if you lose a lot of health. Also, if there is a fountain in the room, try luring the enemies away from it. Then if you hit the cancel button to put away the prince's weapons and you run to the fountain really quickly, you can usually get in a gulp or two of water before the enemies catch up to you.

The only other thing I can suggest is the if you are attacking an enemy and it keeps blocking, jump sideways. The prince will roll around the enemy and you can attack it from the back before it has time to block.

Mangar The Dark
4th Nov 2005, 18:39
Thanks for the POP tips, Wraithstar-- I'll give the game another shot (I hated giving up on it, because up until this particular part, I was having a great time with it.)

As for melee combat in Legend-- If it does have any, I hope they do it right. Remember when Chronicles came out and they advertised "NEW! Stealth Attacks!" Yeah, big whoop, they hardly added anything at all to the experience. So I want the melee combat in Legend to be a fully developed game element if it's going to be there at all.

WraithStar
4th Nov 2005, 18:45
Well, Legend is built on the Defiance engine. I'm not saying that Legend will have combat just like in Defiance, but at least we know that the engine is capable of handling it should they choose to include it:) Good luck with PoP. I hope that our tips help you get past that part so you can enjoy the whole game. :)

Xxx_Lara_xxX
4th Nov 2005, 20:01
Remember when Chronicles came out and they advertised "NEW! Stealth Attacks!" Yeah, big whoop, they hardly added anything at all to the experience.

So true! At least the magnetic grapple hook is something we have never seen before in another game - not just a gimmicky import that adds little at all to the Tomb Raider experience, especially if you were playing TRC on a pc and couldn't even aim the dot where you wanted! :mad:

Mangar The Dark
5th Nov 2005, 15:05
Well, Legend is built on the Defiance engine. I'm not saying that Legend will have combat just like in Defiance, but at least we know that the engine is capable of handling it should they choose to include it:) Good luck with PoP. I hope that our tips help you get past that part so you can enjoy the whole game. :)

I'm going to see what sort of trade-in credit I can get on POP. I just spent about 2 thoroughly unejoyable hours trying to get past that stupid fight sequence, and I FINALLY did it. "Good," I thought, "now I can get back to exploring and puzzle solving." Haha... yeah right. I walk down the hallway, and suddenly I'm in another room filled with a huge number of enemies. Sorry, but this is just NOT my idea of fun. I'll doubt I'll get much trade-in credit for such an old game, but whatever I get is worth it. Thanks anyway for your tips.

I really hope Crystal Dynamics remembers that the strength of these types of games is in exploring and puzzle solving. I absolutely HATE when game designers try to prolong a game by creating ridiculously difficult action sequences. The original TR was great because there were just enough fights to keep you on your toes, and the tense atmosphere made you think the fights were more difficult than they really were, so it never got overly frustrating, but there was a sense of accomplishment when you won. TR2 missed the boat in this regard because the fights got a lot tougher. Suddenly, enemies required three times as many hits to die. This added nothing to the gameplay, and really just made it more tedious and frustrating. Since then, I think Core realized their mistake with TR2, and the fights were scaled back somewhat in all the sequels. So I hope Crystal Dynamics follows Core's lead and keeps the game FUN, not frustrating. I play games to unwind and relax. I like to be able to demolish my enemies. I do not like when they demolish me (I take enough abuse at work, why do I want to pay money to have a game abuse me when I get home?)

blue
5th Nov 2005, 15:59
the only thing i ask is that lara is to be put back in her origional clothing.

T-Bird
5th Nov 2005, 20:47
I LUV ALL the TR games, they were very inovative in their own respects. BUT when u get to TR AOD thats when the poo hits the fan; things go down hill from the time it was delayed, MAJORLY till the time u play it. Granted it had nice graphics and ideas to carry on to other TR games. lets just have faith that TR Legends will carry one that "ledgend". :)

Mangar The Dark
6th Nov 2005, 01:54
the only thing i ask is that lara is to be put back in her origional clothing.

So gameplay doesn't matter at all, as long as you get to see Lara wearing her familiar old clothes?? WOW! I feel the exact opposite... they could dress her in a duck costume, and it wouldn't bother me as long as the gameplay was exceptionally good.

susan
7th Nov 2005, 16:37
I really hope Crystal Dynamics remembers that the strength of these types of games is in exploring and puzzle solving. I absolutely HATE when game designers try to prolong a game by creating ridiculously difficult action sequences. Me too. Remember at first when they kept saying Legend was going to be more "Action-y" than other TR's? I was thinking "uh-oh, shooter" ZZzzz :rolleyes: But they seem to have gone quiet about that and last I read there's a 70:30 split between exploration/puzzles and combat, which sounds much much better.

Mangar The Dark
7th Nov 2005, 17:50
A 70:30 split sounds VERY promising!

It's odd how gaming magazines love to criticize TR games as always being "more of the same," but anytime a new FPS is released, they get ecstatic about it. I mean, how many games do we really need in which we're looking over the barrel of a gun while running down hallways shooting things? I think one TR game offers at least as much gameplay variety as most FPSs combined!

susan
7th Nov 2005, 18:24
I can't comment too much on FPS as I can't play them very long without getting motion sickness. But, yeah, I don't get the imbalance in standards asked of TR compared to other games.

They make TR jump through hoops that other games don't need to. For example, look at the high ratings and frenzy surrounding POP. It was an OK game but not that good imo and I'm convinced if you'd put Lara in there and not the prince, it'd been slagged to high heaven.

Mangar The Dark
7th Nov 2005, 18:45
They make TR jump through hoops that other games don't need to. For example, look at the high ratings and frenzy surrounding POP. It was an OK game but not that good imo and I'm convinced if you'd put Lara in there and not the prince, it'd been slagged to high heaven.

I had the exact same thought. Yes, POP looked fantastic and it was fun (well, to a point.....) but basically it was just a variation on what TR has been doing for years. The only reason I could see it getting a more favorable review than the TR games is that it's graphics engine was clearly superior, and the control scheme was more fluid. Also, its maps didn't feel as Lego-like as TR. But in spite of all that, it was still a TR style game.

On the positive side, maybe this means Legend will be welcomed by critics-- like POP, it's a TR style game with vastly improved graphics and (supposedly) a better control system. And while I know a lot of people here don't care much about what the critics think, good reviews often (not always) translate into improved sales, and that means more hope for more TR.

susan
7th Nov 2005, 19:15
On the positive side, maybe this means Legend will be welcomed by critics-- like POP, it's a TR style game with vastly improved graphics and (supposedly) a better control system. And while I know a lot of people here don't care much about what the critics think, good reviews often (not always) translate into improved sales, and that means more hope for more TR.Well, you know you and I disagree on the quality of POP's control system! :D

And, I'd rather Legend satisfied me than a bunch of critics who prefer POP over TR, which I don't. I take your point about this increasing the sales of Legend :thumbsup: but I hope they haven't copied POP. I don't think it's a good strategy for TR long-term. Me-too gaming, copying designated flavour-of-the-month, for a market brand leader?? Brand leaders who want to stay leaders set trends not follow them, innovation not imitation.

If they've taken some inspiration from POP fine, as long as they've done something with it, improved and not just plain copied. Copying is a strategy for "satisfactory" products, one's that don't last long term, which I hope TR does.

I do think though they'll get better press reviews this time anyway, simply because it's Crystal Dynamics and not Core.

[As a side note, did you see the abysmal reviews the new Circle (old Core) game "Without Warning" received? Ouch. Even TR wasn't that universally panned.] :eek:

Mangar The Dark
7th Nov 2005, 20:23
Susan,
I didn't mean Legend should copy POP (heck, I just got back from returning POP since I couldn't stand it anymore, why would I want them to copy it? :D) All I meant was that reviewers might like Legend more since it offers a TR experience with drastically improved graphics and (supposedly) better controls.

And, yes, I agree that it's more important that I like the game than that a bunch of critics like it. But again, if the game remains a real TR experience, but looks a lot better and has a good control scheme, then I'm sure I will like it. (I actually never minded TR's old control scheme, so for my tastes, they could keep it the same, but I know a lot of people hated it, so if they change it and it's still good, I'm fine with that.)

I never even heard of "Without Warning." I know Core got panned pretty badly by some publications for "Project Eden," but I thought it was a great game, so I'm not sure about "Without Warning." I'll have to read up on it and see what type of game it is.

Mangar The Dark
7th Nov 2005, 20:50
Concerning critics and reviews of TR-- I noticed something interesting the other day. Computer Gaming World once mentioned that the series has been crap after TR2, yet, looking back through old issues of that magazine, I see they awared TR3 "4.5 stars out of 5," and TR4 got "4 out of 5" stars. How, exactly, does that translate into "crap"? Okay, so they hated Chronicles and AOD, but then they should say the series was crap after TR4. Why cut it short by two games? Just because it's cool too hate the series now?

And PC Gamer did a similar thing once in their preview of AOD. They said how the series has been in a downward spiral and the last three outings (TR3, 4 and 5 at the time) were awful. Yet, they awarded TR4 a 75%. Okay, so it's not a great score, but it's not "awful." (by their own defition, "70% - 79% = Good") I can't remember what they awarded the other games, but it's odd how they bash the games in hindsight, even though they obviously enjoyed them at the time.

LaraAngelOfDarkness
7th Nov 2005, 22:58
Concerning critics and reviews of TR-- I noticed something interesting the other day. Computer Gaming World once mentioned that the series has been crap after TR2, yet, looking back through old issues of that magazine, I see they awared TR3 "4.5 stars out of 5," and TR4 got "4 out of 5" stars. How, exactly, does that translate into "crap"? Okay, so they hated Chronicles and AOD, but then they should say the series was crap after TR4. Why cut it short by two games? Just because it's cool too hate the series now?

And PC Gamer did a similar thing once in their preview of AOD. They said how the series has been in a downward spiral and the last three outings (TR3, 4 and 5 at the time) were awful. Yet, they awarded TR4 a 75%. Okay, so it's not a great score, but it's not "awful." (by their own defition, "70% - 79% = Good") I can't remember what they awarded the other games, but it's odd how they bash the games in hindsight, even though they obviously enjoyed them at the time.


Basically its like you said, its cool to hate Tomb Raider.

susan
8th Nov 2005, 17:09
And PC Gamer did a similar thing once in their preview of AOD. They said how the series has been in a downward spiral and the last three outings (TR3, 4 and 5 at the time) were awful. Yet, they awarded TR4 a 75%. Okay, so it's not a great score, but it's not "awful." (by their own defition, "70% - 79% = Good") I can't remember what they awarded the other games, but it's odd how they bash the games in hindsight, even though they obviously enjoyed them at the time.Good point.

BTW, PC Gamer (UK edition) actually gave TR3 a 90%. Can't be that much difference between the US and UK editions can there?

CatSuit&Ponytail
9th Nov 2005, 09:36
That's why I never listen to the reviewers and form my own opinion.

Mangar The Dark
9th Nov 2005, 14:12
That's why I never listen to the reviewers and form my own opinion.

I'm just curious, though, how you know what to spend your money on if you don't pay attention to reviews? I would never rely completely on one reviewer's opinion, but if the general concensus among reviewers is that a game sucks, I certainly won't risk paying full price for that game just so I can see for myself if it does indeed suck. Take AOD for example-- it seemed like at least 90% of reviews complained that it was bug-infested, poorly conceived, etc, etc. So I would have felt like a fool to pay full price for it after being warned by so many people that it was defective. I eventually bought a used copy for $5 from Amazon, and for that price, it was good, but I wouldn't have been thrilled to have spent $40 on it.

Sometimes, I will buy a game even if reviewers pan it, simply because I can read between the lines of the review and determine that the reviewer just doesn't like the sort of games I like (an obvious example is "Indiana Jones And The Infernal Machine"--I read a few reviews which slammed it because it was a TR style game. But since I like TR games, I took that as a good thing and bought it, and liked it.) Still, I DID read reviews to make my decision.

In other case, I will read a glowing review and I'll know that I WON'T like the game. "Ninja Gaiden" for example, gets fantastic reviews everywhere, but all of those reviews say it is extremely challenging. I know that I have no patience with overly challenging games, so I did not buy the game. But again, I did read the reviews to make my decision.

Anyway, this got more longwinded than I had intended, but I'm really just curious to know how you make decisions about what to buy if you do not read reviews first. Do you base your decision on the box art? Screenshots? Previews? (previews, from my experience, tend to be worse than reviews, often touting features that aren't even in the game.)

WraithStar
9th Nov 2005, 16:39
I don't really read reviews before I buy games, either. In my case, I either get a good feeling about a game or a bad feeling, then I do a slight bit of research to see if there are tons of reported bugs or not. I also like to see trailers of the game that have actual gameplay, not just FMV's or cutscenes. For reference, I only buy 3 or 4 brand new games per year; most of the games I buy just happen to be sitting there and are rather cheap so I just grab them. I tend to have good luck with reading between the lines of the publisher's boasts about a new game. If they are bragging too much, or it sounds like they tried to do too much at once, then probably the game will be buggy or incomplete. If the game description sounds reasonable, and especially if there is some gameplay footage to go along with it, then the game will probably be good.

Mangar The Dark
9th Nov 2005, 17:01
Oddly enough, I used to be more carefree with buying things when I had less money. I remember as a kid, when I used to get an allowance from my parents, I would buy games purely on a whim (if they looked cool, I bought them.) But then I got burned a lot of times with bad games that either had lousy gameplay, were too short, or had serious bugs. So, as I got older and I started earning my own money, I was no longer so carefree about it. Now I always read reviews, and I can't even remember the last time I bought a full price game (the thought of spending $40-$50 on a game is almost obscene to me.) Usually, after I read all the reviews, if the game seems like something I would probably like, I wait until I can find it in a bargain bin for about $20 or less.

CatSuit&Ponytail
9th Nov 2005, 18:57
I'm just curious, though, how you know what to spend your money on if you don't pay attention to reviews?
In the same way I know what books to buy. I judge all things I buy by the part of the product I get to see with my own eyes. If that's the cover of a book, or a game box, or a cd, it is judged the same. If something is not looking good at first sight I won't get it, and the reverse is also true. I can live with my mistakes, because the overwhelming majority of my hunches are correct.

Mangar The Dark
9th Nov 2005, 20:04
Well, you're a lot more relaxed than I am when it comes to spending money, Catsuit. I still prefer to research things before spending money on them. I can see using your method for some things (for example, when I go to library sales, I buy paperbacks for 25 cents each, so I don't worry about it too much.) But games can cost almost $50! That's a lot of money to throw away on a hunch. I'm just not that brave, I guess (or I value my money too much.)

Of course, even my method is not foolproof. I bought Burnout 3 because the reviews all loved it, and it DID sound like the sort of thing I'd like, but after about a week, I traded it in because it was too frustratingly difficult.


So, yes, I will wait for reviews before buying Legend. I won't base my decision entirely on whether the review likes it, but I will base it on how the game is generally described (for example, if they say, "Legend is GREAT! It's insanely challenging and features nonstop fighting!" I will NOT buy it. On the other hand, they could say, "Legend is a disaster. It features minimal combat, and most of your time is spent exploring dank tombs and solving puzzles. It can be completed it in 25 hours, but you will rarely get killed." Then I'll run to the store and get it.)

Raven
10th Nov 2005, 05:05
Concerning critics and reviews of TR-- I noticed something interesting the other day. Computer Gaming World once mentioned that the series has been crap after TR2, yet, looking back through old issues of that magazine, I see they awared TR3 "4.5 stars out of 5," and TR4 got "4 out of 5" stars. How, exactly, does that translate into "crap"? Okay, so they hated Chronicles and AOD, but then they should say the series was crap after TR4. Why cut it short by two games? Just because it's cool too hate the series now?

And PC Gamer did a similar thing once in their preview of AOD. They said how the series has been in a downward spiral and the last three outings (TR3, 4 and 5 at the time) were awful. Yet, they awarded TR4 a 75%. Okay, so it's not a great score, but it's not "awful." (by their own defition, "70% - 79% = Good") I can't remember what they awarded the other games, but it's odd how they bash the games in hindsight, even though they obviously enjoyed them at the time.

You're spot on, and for me this is something that really rankles. I think we discussed it in the Core vs Toby Gard thread....all the TR games up until AoD received positive and enthusiastic reviews when they were released, yet a few years later the gaming magazines turn around and savage them with an endless stream of increasingly *****y comments. It certainly is cool to hate Tomb Raider. To my mind the critics are just hypocrites with short memories who take way too much pleasure in knocking things.

CatSuit&Ponytail
10th Nov 2005, 09:22
Well, you're a lot more relaxed than I am when it comes to spending money, Catsuit. I still prefer to research things before spending money on them. I can see using your method for some things (for example, when I go to library sales, I buy paperbacks for 25 cents each, so I don't worry about it too much.) But games can cost almost $50! That's a lot of money to throw away on a hunch. I'm just not that brave, I guess (or I value my money too much.)

I trust my own judgement. And I don't trust reviewers. Most people who are critics have an axe to grind, and I am so sick of people attacking something from their own sense of entitlement. I also am patient enough that if a game doesn't grab my enthusiasm right when it's released to wait a bit until the price drops. I too, think the prices for games are rather high, but I also know that the programmers aren't the one's seeing the money, just like most artists and their work. Just like any business. ;)

GoranAgar
10th Nov 2005, 11:23
To my mind the critics are just hypocrites with short memories who take way too much pleasure in knocking things.
Or worse, just some kids who know nothing of games that are older than 3 years.