Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Tomb raider AE only -- levels long? (don't worry, the length isn't revealed)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,531

    Thumbs Down Tomb raider AE only -- levels long? (don't worry, the length isn't revealed)

    Only >12< levels long, I read on the other forum that AE is going to be >30%< longer than Legend.

    Is it true that these days, game designers are thinking that people want a short game?

    Are they thinking that people want to play games then move onto the next? If the game is only going to be >12<levels long, then why the heck don't I just rent it from a video shop?

    I mean, don't they want to make money?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    42
    Only 12 levels? Oh.

    Well when you think about it, if the original had 15 levels, some of which weren't particularly big but they just took forever to complete due to the puzzles, you can but only hope that the way they've done Anniversary is to combine a few levels into one. Start worrying if you read anywhere that they've stripped any puzzles/tasks out.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,531

    no way!

    I hope not!.

  4. #4

    ... do the math ...

    isn't 12 33% greater than 9?

    you can't judge by the number of levels.

    level complexity (or lack thereof) would be a better measure.
    if the levels are complex and you can save-in-progress, that would be nice.

    i really want tomb raider "throwback" to last far longer than Legend.

    Legend was great, IMO, but i was hungry and hour later.
    three times longer than Legend would be about right ...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    5,298
    It's all relative. The Lost Valley apparently looks much longer than the original did, and if it's true that we go back to the cogs everytime, you get lots of backtracking which work ala TR3 which means you spend 2 or so days on the same level going up and down the same place looking for where to use that key you just got. Which is annoying and very off putting, IMO.

  6. #6

    ... 3 or 4 ...

    yes ... nooo ...

    i hope it is not too much like TR4.
    back-tracking there was over the top, IMO.

    he, he, he, ... really all you want is infinite puzzles for near-zero investment ...

    ... just anxious to see what the new game will be like.
    putting aside the inevitable fact that a single game cannot please everybody ...
    "throwback" should be Legendary (i.e. great).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,531
    Quote Originally Posted by TREEBLE View Post
    The Lost Valley apparently looks much longer than the original did.

    I already know where two of the cogs are from all of the screens!

    I think that the game should be level by level and not drag like TR4 and 6, 20 levels that you can come back to and play is a perfect amount IMO!

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by rabid metro View Post
    you can't judge by the number of levels.
    level complexity (or lack thereof) would be a better measure.
    if the levels are complex and you can save-in-progress, that would be nice.
    very true.
    if I remember correctly, the original TR1 had 15 levels? 15 isn't a lot more then 12, but TR1 seemed long enough for us thanks to it's complexity.
    so the question is (mostly) about AE's puzzles*, enemies and difficulty level.

    * another thing - will we get those easy motion-puzzles like in TRL? or *real* quests like in the original TR1? these stuff can affect the game's length and difficulty level.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,531
    Yere, I agree with rabid metro about that it's mostly about the level complexity.

    I mean, look at Grand theft auto, there's only like 1 level for the whole game, but there are so many diffrent little tasks and errins to run.

  10. #10
    I like to backtrack a little, if the game is too straightforward then it gets too linear, even if the puzzles, platforms and enemies are hard the flow is always the same (>>).

    You are either on the move or stuck on a dificult part and there is no real exploration wich tottally kills the adventure (like Ghana in Legend, i felt like i only scrached its surface).

    If the levels are small you wont get much to explore, get lost, find, etc so backtracking wont be that interesting.

    I just ran thru legends single direction while i lived in TR3's India or pacific levels.
    The importance of complex level design in an adventure game like TR is huge imo, i understand that due to new, high graphical standards level design is often limited (extra work, assembly, time consuming, etc) but its what the game is about to me.

    Lara's wardrobe, hair, etc are less than secondary, im not buying TR because "oh! Lara looks so nice now..".

  11. #11
    I think it will also have the "Unfinished Business" levels! I hope it has, 'cause i haven't never played them. I only have the original one and Legend, so...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,576
    l think it is to early to be complaining about how many levels it has. It could have only 4 levels, and still take twice as long as the original. Even if we knew for sure how many levels there were (which we do not) we would still have no idea as to their length or complexity.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,531
    As I said here:
    I already know where two of the cogs are from all of the screens!
    I have proof, see:


  14. #14
    It's been said before, but I agree: the number of levels isn't the most important thing, it's what they're like to play. Now if these levels were short, then I would feel a little cheated by 12. But if each one is like the original, where each level took a long time to complete and had various twists and turns and cunningly hidden secrets, then 12 would be fine. Although I would love something absolutely immense to play through (a la TRLR) I'll be happy if the game is good.
    signature image

  15. #15
    I think I've just been spoiled by huge games like GTA:SA, Oblivion, and Final Fantasy, games that took 50 - 60 hours (or 150 in the case of Oblivion). 20 hrs. of gameplay is good enough, but 9 or 10 hours just isn't worth the financial investment.

    Although huge levels with nothing to do is just a waste of time as well.

Similar Threads

  1. No Crystarium Challenge - Support and Tips
    By Bhalditar in forum FINAL FANTASY XIII
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18th Jun 2012, 01:26
  2. AOD-Clip!
    By angie-croft.de in forum Tomb Raider 1 - 6 - Gaming Help Center
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12th Dec 2004, 12:32
  3. Stuck in Audale.
    By bryanhickman7777 in forum Thief: Deadly Shadows
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 3rd Jul 2004, 17:28
  4. Can't Play
    By sharpwar in forum Deus Ex: Invisible War
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th Dec 2003, 17:02
  5. Happy Birthday Rose662
    By AmO in forum Members Lounge (formerly Eidos Community Chat)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 28th Jun 2003, 04:27

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •