Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 98 of 98

Thread: RPG Elements for the next TR game?

  1. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by briek View Post
    Nope... I meant at all because since I've joined your passion has seemed more to be rude putdowns. But I don't know you, so I might be taking what you're saying completely wrong, and if that's the case - sorry for that. In this case, sometimes people just don't see those things. Just give a girl (or boy) a break. And some people may not read every post on a thread. I don't. I read the last page, because I don't want to take all the time to read the entire thread.

    But you've been nice since everybody got on your back about it.
    I realise that some people do not read every post in a thread they post in; but this is not talking about any post, this is talking about the Opening Post, the very first post on the page. As I said, the "at all" bit may have been a bit out of line, but I really don't think suggesting someone read the opening post of a thread is rude.

  2. #77

    Cool

    How about following a slightly different RPG definition, such as a Realistically Played Game?
    Simply surviving in TR's "far away and dangerous places" could be a basic starting point?
    Basic details like food, water, extremes of hot and cold and even resting would be considered.

    Med kits would not work their usual "magic" and wounds would slow and could even disable her, some what.
    And the current bullet-proof-player attitude would not EVEN be a part of this real-world (RW) RPG, mates.
    And of course, one-shot-kills could still stop an enemy, but Lara could suffer the same fate.
    (Stealth and planning or scouting an area would become very important RW skills.)

    She could have the very best form-fitting (sexy?) body armor made in the world. (Hey, she's RICH, so $$$ is not the problem.)
    But even the best armor wears with the stopping of hot-lead and razor-sharp claws.
    (And if she wears it out, during a mission, all those wounds and that one-shot-kill would be awaiting her.)

    Heck, I might as well stop there, because kids love playing the current "super" Lara, way too much.

  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by 9er_Fan View Post
    I agree with the "somewhere new." I also agree that RPG elements are not the only way. That is what I was trying to get at with the "emotion behind the question." I interpreted “RPG elements” as your suggestion for “somewhere new.” Sorry if I got that wrong!

    I was also trying to argue that RPG elements are becoming mainstream and are already hopping genres.
    If you did get it wrong, I do humbly forgive you. I was not insulted by it. I think I must apologise, though, for not liking the way you worded things.
    My approach to this question was not "this is where it must go", but "here is where it could go", along with "what do you see in terms of RPG of where it could go", and "what do you think of these ideas in terms of where TR ends up".

    I would not be surprised if RPG-elements (to at least the extent of customisation) become somewhat mainstream in games, and I guess this is one reason why TR should include it to an extent so that it is not one of the slackers, but one of the things in charge.

    Quote Originally Posted by 9er_Fan View Post
    The reason I call them modes is that most consoles are button-limited. Unlike a PC, you would not have enough buttons to cram in an extended hand-to-hand system with an extended small-arms system unless you were really, really creative. The idea was you could run around in one mode (say, adventure) and when surprised by some baddie, immediately choose another appropriate mode (say, combatives). Once the combat is over, you could immediately switch back to adventurer mode. The modes are more of a way to extend the button-set on consoles and still get all of the different ways to play.
    Sorry for my disagreement with those words of yours. :P
    I think even on a PC over-clutter of the controls is a bad thing. The controls should be able to be played on a gamepad, and PC can easily adapt/follow after that. (The camera is the thing that hurts the most to PC gamers, though ). I guess I like the idea of context-sensitive controls rather than completely different controls for each situation; it's a subtle difference (I guess), and the only reason I say it is that it is bad when gamers are confused by controls. It's a non-issue, really, because the controls could be 'sorted out' easily enough for the situation as it comes. (So long as Lara doesn't have to/isn't able to do too many things at once).

    Quote Originally Posted by 9er_Fan View Post
    Agreed which is why I also put Fallout 3 in because their “VATS” system auto-aims for you. However, I guess I would argue that the stylized combat is falling out of favor. I argued this in my review as well. I argue that customers have seen too much Iraq footage and played too much Rainbow Six to like John Woo -style anymore. You don't really see any more John Woo movies. To me, having Lara do more realistic combat elevates the “bad-ass” ness of her character. Auto versus manual could definitely could be the difference between the casual and hardcore difficulty settings.
    Again, sorry for going psycho at you because of your words :P
    While I think that more realistic combat is making a progress, I don't think that "unrealistic combat" games won't sell; Ultimately the closest people can get to 'realistic' is with combat simulators, and simulators are not the most fun of games. Fun will always be the key, I think combat-realism is a major-secondary factor, though.

    (On a side note, I play most other games casually, but I like to challenge myself when it comes to TR; I seriously wonder whether I would pick manual/auto aim given the [dream] choice. I guess part of the decisions are related to the implementation of it... e.g. how 'headshots' are performed in manual, etc.)

    Quote Originally Posted by 9er_Fan View Post
    We can argue whether Underworld is good or bad but one thing is beyond argument: Tomb Raider is no longer the vanguard of the industry.

    There are folks who are okay with that. There are folks who just want a way to be engrossed for 10 hours (or 6.5 ;-P). There are other folks realize how close they came to losing everything after the AOD debacle and don't want Tomb Raider to stretch again in such a risky way. Both are completely understandable. It was a behemoth effort for CD to “right the ship” with Legend.

    And then there are folks like me (and you...judging from your comments) who want Tomb Raider to move back to being the vanguard or at least closer to “state of the art” in terms of game-play and features (not including graphics...everyone assumes “state of the art” just means graphics).

    To the people who don't want to stretch, I ask that they go back and read the reviews for TR3, TR4, and TR5. Each successive release lost a point—I think TR4 scored a 6.5. The industry had moved on and Tomb Raider did not change. I fear that we are starting down the same road with Underworld and some of the reviewers hint the same.
    .....
    Basically they all said the same thing...Tomb Raider did not keep up with the industry. AOD was supposed to catch the franchise up but instead plunged the franchise into darkness (pun intended). Crystal Dynamics did a heroic job of rescuing Tomb Raider but we are, in many respects, in the same place as we were after Last Revelation. What do we do? More of the same? If so, then it should be 20 hours of the same and not Underworld's 6.5. Something new? I vote for something new.
    Agreed with TR failing because of staying in the same spot.

    Am I allowed to be naive for a moment? I don't want to see TR ruined because of a "risky stretch", but I don't want TR to be ruined by digging in the sand, staying on the old ground.
    I guess what I want, is for TR to maintain the old, the things that make TR good (and define a game as TR), while keeping fresh at the same time.... (though this discussion here should probably be kept to the thread I linked to as an 'answer' to "Question 2", below).

    Quote Originally Posted by 9er_Fan View Post
    The questions are...1) How do we get there [something new], and 2) Where is “there? [that new place]”
    I think the first question is fairly simple; first decide where you want to go (the 2nd question), then figure out how to get there, and make sure that when you are there, it is solid. Any limitations (such as of the game engine, or of the fangroup[s] should be taken into account in the 2nd question).

    The 2nd question is much more tricky; in a general sense, I think this is being discussed in here, and then there are (or should be) threads like this discussing the possibility of certain "new features" working within a game.
    The question is tricky because there are so many conditions that must be met; it must be a good game; it must please the mainstream audience; it should be able to please a majority of fans of the series; it should be something new, but not something that doesn't work (and not something that is completely different to what it was), etc.

    In terms of this thread, I think it would be worth coming up with solid (& specific) ideas as to what would be good in an RPG. (I consider it established that TR needs this to an extent; how far an extent is what we could discuss).

    _____________________________________

    Quote Originally Posted by Dukem View Post
    Okay, I've only read a few replies in this thread, so hopefully I don't talk about ideas already discussed here.

    First off, RPG elements were implemented (albeit crudely) into AOD, and even though I loved the game, those elements only helped to seal the commercial fate of the game. I didn't enjoy them.

    The only RPG element I can see being introduced to Tomb Raider would be an inventory system for her backpack. And by inventory system, I mean the likes of Diablo and Resident Evil 4. You know, the kind of system where you have to rotate the items to make everything fit until you can stash it or sell everything off. Which I hate.

    If Crystal Dynamics are to add any elements to Tomb Raider (which is unlikely), they'd better be more exploration ones. If the whole game was just one big exploration/puzzle fest with an awesome story and the action contained to cutscenes, I'd be perfectly happy. More than happy.

    P.S. 9er_Fan, I was going to write something along the lines of your post too, but you've hit the nail on the head. The Tomb Raider series is stuck in that time capsule again, only this time, the genre is Action, and the order of the day is overly-protruding ledges.
    AoD has been mentioned before, and I don't think it has any impact on the discussion at hand (I've said it enough that I really don't want to repeat myself; you'll find my thoughts in other posts in this thread). 9er_Fan also made a comment on AoD (basically that AoD fell short of both its potential, and what it claimed to do, if I recall correctly).

    I guess it is correct that TR is stuck at the crossroads it was stuck at before; although I do not think CD have reached their full potential along the road, yet. The issue is the same regardless of how good CD could make the TR-formula in the next game; they need something new and different, not just something better. (Or, I guess if they do something that is better, it had better be perfected; and even then they are at this crossroads still).
    That leads to those two questions that 9er_Fan asked. (I think I asked similar, but not as clearly :P)
    _____________________________________

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurre View Post
    Wow, this one hell of a topic. thank you 9er_Fan for your great posts... you too rg_001100

    Now considering RPG's... I am open to this kind of gameplay when used to diversify the overall game, although of course in its heart it will always be a platform game. However, I think the combat elements are in far more dire need of repairing.

    I don't know about you but I doubt that the gaming world will accept another Tr game with Anniversary or Underworld-style combat. I believe its really time they turn this..... uh...... thing into a decent third-person shooter. I have not played the TPS that 9er_Fan refers to but I take his word for it if he says its good and that the Tr-combat should be like that. I don't remember who it was -was it you 9er_Fan?- who said that if Lara was to take cover behind something and fire from there she would act much more like a believable character. A warrior and heroine, someone who really knows what she's doing and acts with professionalism, making her someone to be taken much more seriously.

    Taking the combat seriously in my opinion is very important, or else a game is better off without it. And as a part of that, I strongly believe that Lara needs serious enemies like men with guns and monsters, but no animals like tigers or wolves. Its okay to fight those in a blocky 1996 game (I believe Core never took the game very seriously anyway), but imagine that in a game like Crysis, Call of Duty or Killzone you would have to shoot tigers and those beasts would be a serious thread to you. I would surely think 'what the......'. I mean come on: we all know these days that those animals are not that dangerous, how can I take Lara serious as a kicking ass warrior woman when her opponents are a bunch of tigers? We're living in a new world now, just let them go.

    To add depth to a third-person shooter they can include things like weapon-customization. I'm not sure whether that is considered to be RPG-gameplay, but I love to do it. Other than that, I don't think RPG is really needed: it would be a nice addition if well-executed, but its more importantly to fix the combat. I believe with so much being writen about it now, Crystal D has to do something...
    I would not agree that TR combat must be with humans; though if it is to be with humans they need to be a lot better; the human enemies in TR were "walking targets", not enemy mercenaries. (if they choose human enemies), I would like to see them tough enough to be considered small-bosses (without actually being bosses), rather than a slight hinderance in raiding. I would like to see them take cover (assuming Lara could take cover as well), and act with smart squad-based tactics.
    The "realistic" combat style (being able to/required to take cover, etc.) would only be necessary with the human combat, however.
    Non-human enemies can be so different, though. Any human v. human combat would rank against modern action games, and TR would be bound to fail it in some way. (Too much or too little, at the best). Look at the thralls in TR:U, they are so much more... "flavoursome" than the human enemies are. The Atlantean enemies of TR:A are too. With non-human enemies; there is the opportunity for exciting, stylised combat that is not too cheesy, and would actually sell. (Well, it would sort of be 'cheesy', but in the stylised, TR way).
    Crysis, CoD and KZ are all FPS. I have only played the first of those, but Crysis (and Far Cry) both have non-human enemies that have melee attacks. (The alien enemy of Crysis can shoot ice/laser things, but that is more secondary). I think animals might not work so well in more realistic-styled games; because they are limited in the ways that they can move, but fictional, non-human enemies certainly have potential in fantasy-action games.
    TR could survive with Tigers, (animals), etc. in it because it has been what the series has done in the past. It would survive without them, but TR is not at a loss either way.

    I guess the question to discuss (in the other thread :P) is whether TR combat needs to progress to something that is human-only, and serious combat, or whether it should drop human combat [except for tough bosses, perhaps], and go with a solid, stylised combat system. As I said, I though the combat was good when it was not against humans (in Mexico it was alright... ish). (Combat dropped off with the arrival of the uber-weapon, which was not reserved for a boss fight, or tough merc fights like in TR:L).
    _____________________________________

    Quote Originally Posted by tiger View Post
    How about following a slightly different RPG definition, such as a Realistically Played Game?
    Simply surviving in TR's "far away and dangerous places" could be a basic starting point?
    Basic details like food, water, extremes of hot and cold and even resting would be considered.

    Med kits would not work their usual "magic" and wounds would slow and could even disable her, some what.
    And the current bullet-proof-player attitude would not be a part of this real-world (RW) RPG, mates.
    And of course, one-shot-kills could stop an enemy, but Lara could suffer the same fate.
    (Stealth and planning or scouting an area would become very important RW skills.)

    She could have the very best form-fitting (sexy?) body armor made in the world.
    But even the best armor wears with the stopping of hot-lead and razor-sharp claws.

    (I might as well stop there, because kids love playing the current "super" Lara, way too much.)
    psst. relate this idea to RPG-elements; otherwise I think it'd be better to discuss elsewhere... I could see how RPG-elements would fit into this idea, though, and how it might be essential for this idea...
    I would consider this a TR-simulator. I don't think it would be so popular, except for the truly motivated/hardcore... it would be interesting to allow this as an extension to the game, but I don't think it should play the main role of the challenge in the game.
    (In general, people love playing "super" characters [look at 99% of FPShooters, etc.]; we play games to escape real life).

  4. #79
    Hey why dont they have time portals like say Stargate . Then Lara can travel back to the Norse Age.... 4 real. Then she could ride about on dragons like Reign of Fire.... and with a Matthew McConnaughey style sidekick. I'm thinking Secret of Mana buddy co-op in this one

  5. #80

    State of the Art

    I post these to broaden the discussion as to what is "State of the Art" or where the industry is.

    IGN XBox360 Game of the Year / GameSpot Best Role Playing Game: Fallout 3
    (Also IGN Best RPG for the Xbox360)
    (Also IGN Best Use of Sound for the Xbox360)
    (Also IGN Best RPG for the PS3)
    (Also IGN Best RPG for the PC)
    (Also GameSpot Best Game for the PC)


    GameSpot Game of the Year / IGN PS3 Game of the Year: Metal Gear Solid 4
    (Also IGN Best Action Game for the PS3)
    (Also IGN Best Graphics Technology for the PS3)
    (Also GameSpot Best Action / Adventure Game)
    (Also GameSpot Best Game for the PS3)


    IGN WII Game of the Year: World of Goo
    (Also IGN Best Puzzle Game for the WII)
    (Also IGN Best New IP for the WII)
    (Also IGN Best Downloadable Content for the WII)
    (Also IGN Best Artistic Design for the WII)
    (Also IGN Most Innovative Design for the WII)
    (Also IGN Best Puzzle Game for the PC)


    IGN Best Action Game for the PC: Grand Theft Auto IV
    (Also IGN Best Action Game for the Xbox360)
    (Also IGN Best Graphics Technology for the Xbox360)
    (Also IGN Best Voice Acting for the Xbox360)
    (Also IGN Best Story for the Xbox360)
    (Also IGN Best Voice Acting for the PS3)
    (Also IGN Best Story for the PS3)
    (Also IGN Best Voice Acting for the PC)
    (Also GameSpot Best Game for The Xbox 360)



    IGN Best Shooting Game for the PC: Left 4 Dead
    (Also IGN Best Online Multiplayer Game for Xbox360)
    (Also IGN Best Use of Sound for the PC)
    (Also IGN Best Multiplayer Game for the PC)
    (Also GameSpot Best Shooter)



    IGN Best Platform Game for the PC: Prince of Persia
    (Also IGN Best Platform Game for Xbox360)
    (Also IGN Best Artistic Design for Xbox360)


    IGN Best Story for the PC: Mass Effect
    (Mass Effect was released for Xbox360 in 2007 so is ineligible for many categories)
    (Also IGN Best Original Score for the PC)
    (Also IGN Best Story for the PC)


    IGN PC Game of the Year: Sins of a Solar Empire
    (Also IGN Most Innovative Design for the PC)
    (Also IGN Best New IP for the PC)
    (Also IGN Best Strategy Game for the PC)
    (Also GameSpot Best Strategy Game)



    FWIW, Burnout Paradise won the driving accolades from both sites and NHL 09 won the sports accolades from both sites.

    As to the suggestion for portals like Stargate. That gameplay mechanic is used heavily in Mass Effect. The title "Mass Effect" refers to the ability to use those portals. In essence, the gameplay mechanic is what divides up the universe (the "hub" mentioned in another's previous post)

  6. #81
    In terms of specific ideas for this thread, I think these are things we should consider:

    -----
    • A description of the idea/feature
    • Where the feature (or a feature similar to it) has been done before
    • How the feature was used in that game, in what situations it was used
    • What improvements/adjustments could be made so that it would fit within TR
    • What adjustments would need to be made for both the idea, and for TR, so that it would fit
    • A similar or comparable feature that has been done in TR before, or how this new feature could relate to TR as it is now
    • Possibilities of what this could do for gameplay, etc. in TR
    • Why this feature is such a good feature to have, and why it should be implemented

    -----

    e.g. "Weapon Customisation"
    Weapon customisation is the ability to upgrade/modify the weapons the player carries throughout the level, to make the weapon better suited for the purpose, or an easier/better weapon to use.
    This feature has been implemented in various games involving combat, one example is Crysis. In Crysis a weapon can be modified during "play" time, and can be modified with objects that the player has found, and are in the player's inventory (such as scopes, laser sights, and silencers). These modifications allow the player to use the weapon in different situations (e.g. scope for sniping, silencer for stealth, etc.). Modification was performed "real-time", the game did not pause for the modifications.
    This feature could be adjusted for inclusion within TR by allowing the modification of weapons within the PDA (and limiting the number of weapons able to be carried).
    Weapon customisation has been done before in TR, to a slight extent. In TR4/5 it was possible to have multiple ammo types, and only one was selected at a time. The comination of a scope with the revolver is an example of weapon customisation. Weapon upgrading was also done in TR:Legend.
    Weapon customisation could allow certain areas of gameplay to vary in difficulty depending on the customisation of weapons, e.g. player can sneak around shooting targets with a silencer, or accurately shoot an enemy by use of the scope. Customisable objects that do not make the game harder could be hidden as bonuses, or secrets. e.g. a laser sight for the weapon could be in a well hidden area, like a secret/relic might be.
    Weapon customisation is a feature that should be implemented in TR because it would allow combat to be expanded, and because it is becoming a standard feature in the combat genre of games.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,260
    So people are still talking in this thread...I LOVE RPG games but...I love tomb raider more cause it's something special..if it turn into an RPG game...i'll bee really dissapointed..I don't want no RPG elements for TR...ok well interacting with people is ok but it's enough...and it only happened in AOD anyway...
    I spiked the tea.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,260
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavenlyRaider. View Post
    I cross my heart and pray to cheebus, please... NO RPG'S PLEASE.

    That's what Warcraft is for!
    PLEASE, NO RPG'S.

    I can not stress that enough.

    Lara, needs to be told what to do by CD and no-one else.

    Unless of course if one of the options for RPG was to do the peanut butter jelly dance...
    World of warcraft yay I may get it...for Christmas...TRU wasn't for christmas I got Lineage2 but World of Warcraft is way better if you ask me...AND OH GOD NO TOMB RAIDER RPGs OK?!
    I spiked the tea.

  9. #84
    I think post #67 is a pretty good post for justifying RPG elements in TR... there are still questions that could be explored about it, though, such as "how much RPG should be included: a) in the next game? b) in the series?", and then there is the big question of what TR should become so as to stay alive in the games industry (which I think is being discussed in another thread... or should be :P).

  10. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    there are still questions that could be explored about it, though, such as "how much RPG should be included: a) in the next game? b) in the series?", and then there is the big question of what TR should become so as to stay alive in the games industry (which I think is being discussed in another thread... or should be :P).

    OMG u guys keep going round in circles don't you..... the main thing is CD keep improving the quality of the brand which is: Mario64 precision playground levels + Ico soulful + Devil May Cry badass = epic win . Only that will guarantee the survival of the series........ Then u build on this with a splash of Halo vehicle melee, a splash of Zelda ADVENTURE RPG mechanics and a big splash of cool programming from the ex employees of Looking Glass for the 10/10, for example knee/waist height deforming snow OR jetski grapplegun balletics in Venice .... come on u guys go for the 10/10

    NOT hardcore rpg because thats WAY too scary for normal people. The games to look at are Twilight Princess and Mass Effect

    NOT and I repeat NOT Warcraft, Fallout gay, or FFX Tactics advanced + gay Note i did not mention gears of war because gears non-destructible cover system kills all sense of threat and the sticky cover is a complete * to master when some douche jumps u....... btw try this on Gears: ok, get in cover, dont press pause then go to the toilet for a dump - u will still be alive when u get back. Thats how ridiculous this game is. Gears is 4 camping noOBlets.... with the emphasis on camp.

  11. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by midna1 View Post
    NOT and I repeat NOT Warcraft, Fallout gay, or FFX Tactics advanced + gay Note i did not mention gears of war because gears non-destructible cover system kills all sense of threat and the sticky cover is a complete * to master when some douche jumps u....... btw try this on Gears: ok, get in cover, dont press pause then go to the toilet for a dump - u will still be alive when u get back. Thats how ridiculous this game is. Gears is 4 camping noOBlets.... with the emphasis on camp.
    Warcraft is a RTS game; (WoWarcraft is the MMORPG), TR doesn't really make sense for the RTS genre. Although, you seem to be back to your "gay dismissal" thing. . GoW is a 3PShooter that uses a cover system. Now you know that you don't like cover systems.

  12. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    Although, you seem to be back to your "gay dismissal" thing. . GoW is a 3PShooter that uses a cover system. Now you know that you don't like cover systems.
    OMG gay actually means def: full of, or showing high-spirited merriment.... so FFX tactics + gay is.... a tactical RTS + extra gayness. Just because you're prejudice it doesn't mean everyone else is. Gears of War also has lots of high spirited merriment..... with muscled up uber men in tight fitting gear. And NO women. Thats why u and everyone like it. Because its soooo gay . And the cover system sucks

  13. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    I would not agree that TR combat must be with humans;
    I said "like men with guns and monsters," .... I consider the aliens in Crysis to be monsters. Point is: to me they have to be dangerous and worthy enemies of her ladyship.

    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    I would like to see them tough enough to be considered small-bosses (without actually being bosses), rather than a slight hinderance in raiding. I would like to see them take cover (assuming Lara could take cover as well), and act with smart squad-based tactics.
    Oh, I would love it if the number of human enemies was limited to, say, ten, but each of those guys -or gals- would have a bit of a personality. Much like Tr1. There's the giant thug armed with a minigun, the poet warrior who qoutes Shakespeare all the time, the mad Japanese guy with a sword, the 50 cent-style gangsta... you know, just some thoughts. And everyone is basically a mini-boss.

    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    The "realistic" combat style (being able to/required to take cover, etc.) would only be necessary with the human combat, however.
    Non-human enemies can be so different, though. Any human v. human combat would rank against modern action games, and TR would be bound to fail it in some way. (Too much or too little, at the best). Look at the thralls in TR:U, they are so much more... "flavoursome" than the human enemies are. The Atlantean enemies of TR:A are too. With non-human enemies; there is the opportunity for exciting, stylised combat that is not too cheesy, and would actually sell. (Well, it would sort of be 'cheesy', but in the stylised, TR way).
    Crysis, CoD and KZ are all FPS. I have only played the first of those, but Crysis (and Far Cry) both have non-human enemies that have melee attacks. (The alien enemy of Crysis can shoot ice/laser things, but that is more secondary). I think animals might not work so well in more realistic-styled games; because they are limited in the ways that they can move, but fictional, non-human enemies certainly have potential in fantasy-action games.
    TR could survive with Tigers, (animals), etc. in it because it has been what the series has done in the past. It would survive without them, but TR is not at a loss either way.;
    Like I said its not that I fancy human enemies only. However, I must say because the human enemies attacked at range in TrL, the combat was much less messy and confusing as it was in the next two against the animals. Because they kept their distance I had better view of what I was doing and didn't have to do this ducking and jumping stuff that usualy ends into being gangraped by tigers because the damn wall was in the way. I still couldn't shoot from cover of course, but I could run from cover to cover while shooting, which was rather fun.
    I still do like melee-enemies but I think it would be better if that sort of combat was like,... well, Call of Duty 4-5 for instance: the challenge lies mostly in shooting them before they can reach you, if they do you'll have to press the melee button in time or else you're dead. Its simple but very workable.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,814
    [QUOTE=John Akam;916609]
    Quote Originally Posted by BLOWHARD View Post
    But RPG with Lara? Mess with her personality by letting the player choose her gender or something like that? Then she's not Lara. Take her out and give the player a creatable character and it's not TR anymore.
    B/QUOTE]

    The RPG elements we are talking about doesn't include customization of Lara Croft, the TOMB RAIDER herself. It simply involves the implementation of Role-Playing Game ideas into Tomb Raider game, like upgrades, conversation, buying-selling thing, choosing where to go. There is no character modification involve. Its not a simulation-style game.

    And I do agree on the remake of TR 2. AWESOME!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by BLOWHARD View Post
    When I read the title of you post I though rocket propelled grenades
    I wouldn't be too in to the RPG think in TR. I wouldn't mind a role playing game set in "TR" land but I wouldn't want to muck up the series itself.
    I do like the optional stuff like the monks, and more "free roam" stuff with things, people and animals/=monsters to interact with might be neat.
    But RPG with Lara? Mess with her personality by letting the player choose her gender or something like that? Then she's not Lara. Take her out and give the player a creatable character and it's not TR anymore.
    But, maybe I should restate all that RG? Most of what you have on your list is ok but to me they're not necessarily role playing things. At least not how I see it. As long as Lara stays Lara and can't be modified or changed, and so long as your interactions are confined to the story line and Lara's personality, that would be fine by me

    Have any of you played Uncharted? That game, although HEAVILY based on TR stuff, had a number of really nice touches that could be incorporated into TR as far as storyline and movement throughout the game.

    As a side note, when you mentioned the monks in TR2, I realized, DAMN I MISS MARCO BARTOLI!!!!
    ( I hope they redo TR2 with current graphics!!!)
    I must admit, I'd love to get some customization elements in the next TR game like those RPG games. No gender stuff or mascara and why do people want to make Lara look like a member of Kiss. . I'd love to slap on some spelunking equipment, Archeological or photo Journalistic ones. I'd like to record her ventures like that guy in Man vs Wild. I'd like to see her talking to a camera and doing a National Geographic show, saying, "I've just discovered the tomb of Genghis Khan, for centuries no one knew where it was, and...." A Giant Spirit creature suddenly attacks. Lara drops camera and all we see and hear is her feet jumping, a monsters roar, and gun fire. That's RPG-ish right?.... Anyhow. Unfortunately RG doesn't own consoles, me thinks so he wouldn't know what Uncharted is like. It has a few RPG things in it. And from what I've read about Uncharted 2 it will integrate more such elements seemingly in the Genre. Like Characters interacting with the environment, same as Drake, like a everything you can do I can do better deal. Anything Drake can his opponents can too. On the level ups, well , having just played GOW 1 and currently going through 2, as long as it is done that way, I'm ok with it. For instance, if you find so many hidden things your health bar goes up or you gain a new weapon in game, which you earned and subsequently can find useful as you will have tougher opponents and puzzles in which they may be needed. Not like hey I'm in a village and I can talk to this guy and he says I lost my pig or something useless like that. with book loads of dialogue every time you talk to someone or have to.

    By the way Bartoli was cool. I'd like to empty a few more rounds into that guy.
    signature image

  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Jurre View Post
    I said "like men with guns and monsters," .... I consider the aliens in Crysis to be monsters. Point is: to me they have to be dangerous and worthy enemies of her ladyship.
    My point was; TR combat doesn't need to go in one direction. I think it would be better for TR if it did split into one or the other, though. The combat style for human v. human would be criticised as being archaic (as it is in TR:U), because it does not feature a cover system, etc. that other action games in the market do. That would make it a different combat system against humans and animals; and I guess that might work but one would not be as good as the other, and I think it would be odd for the player to have to fight in two different styles.
    What I am getting at is in future TR games, combat against humans would have to be more sophistacated that it is in TR at the moment; combat against non humans would need to improve, but not by such a great extent. (People can appreciate what TR in combat is, I think, but the combat v. human thing is just painful compared to what is now common in the action industry).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurre View Post
    Oh, I would love it if the number of human enemies was limited to, say, ten, but each of those guys -or gals- would have a bit of a personality. Much like Tr1. There's the giant thug armed with a minigun, the poet warrior who qoutes Shakespeare all the time, the mad Japanese guy with a sword, the 50 cent-style gangsta... you know, just some thoughts. And everyone is basically a mini-boss.
    Well, I want to see enemies that require upgrading/adaption to survive against, or something. (Just so this fits in with the RPG topic :P). Seriously on that idea, though; the boss guy might be dodgeable but not beatable until the player gets skills; and shooting at him makes him run away or something like that.
    Anyway, the most important thing, at least, is for the enemies to want to survive, not just stand in the open. It would be lovely to see the style of enemy you describe; having a character every bit as good as Lara, able to jump, traverse ledges, etc. following Lara or racing ahead of Lara. (There were enemies that could do that before in TR; they worked well). The only downside to having just a handful of unsupported bad guys is combat across a whole game would get tedious, or dull. Keep the dozen or so elite elite guys, but I think it would be good if there were intelligent squads of AI enemies that were a challenge to kill as well. (I'm not sure if you've played any of the Brothers in Arms games, but they involve the player commanding two squads around shooting enemy squads; something like that setup, where the two [or so] squads would be smart enough to work without the commander, and the elite elite dude acts as their commander could be cool.
    I don't quite see it working in tombs, but I'm sure it could pass anyway. Combat would just be as seperate as it ever was, though, I think. Perhaps plain mercs amongst things so that they can give an enemy hinderance at any time, rather than just at moments of "ledge peace".

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurre View Post
    Like I said its not that I fancy human enemies only. However, I must say because the human enemies attacked at range in TrL, the combat was much less messy and confusing as it was in the next two against the animals. Because they kept their distance I had better view of what I was doing and didn't have to do this ducking and jumping stuff that usualy ends into being gangraped by tigers because the damn wall was in the way. I still couldn't shoot from cover of course, but I could run from cover to cover while shooting, which was rather fun.
    I still do like melee-enemies but I think it would be better if that sort of combat was like,... well, Call of Duty 4-5 for instance: the challenge lies mostly in shooting them before they can reach you, if they do you'll have to press the melee button in time or else you're dead. Its simple but very workable.
    What you 'fancy' is clean combat, rather than being "raped by tigers", which isn't particularly your fault. Combat in Shooters (Crysis/CoD) is clean in its implementation.

    I would suggest that if the non-ledge acrobatics (which pretty much suck with CD's engine, which is built upon jumping from ledge to ledge) were improved, it could allow combat along the lines of the Core games, which was better than what TR has at the moment. Might not work so well against human enemies, but against non humans it would be "cleaner". (More responsibility on the player to dodge, rather than to shoot before needing to dodge).
    Shooter style combat could work in TR, though. I think Auto-aim is a tradition/trademark of the series, though, and so any combat would have to be workable from that. It would be a shame if combat were so intense in itself that it became so separate from the platforming things.

  16. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    My point was; TR combat doesn't need to go in one direction. I think it would be better for TR if it did split into one or the other, though. The combat style for human v. human would be criticised as being archaic (as it is in TR:U), because it does not feature a cover system, etc. that other action games in the market do.
    No, but then they'll have to make that cover system next time... can't be too much of a problem...
    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    That would make it a different combat system against humans and animals; and I guess that might work but one would not be as good as the other, and I think it would be odd for the player to have to fight in two different styles.
    But many shoot them up games who feature mostly ranged enemies also have their share of melee enemies, and it usualy works fine... -even though the Taliban suicide bombers in Army of Two run towards you in slow-motion to give you the change to shoot them-

    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    What I am getting at is in future TR games, combat against humans would have to be more sophistacated that it is in TR at the moment; combat against non humans would need to improve, but not by such a great extent. (People can appreciate what TR in combat is, I think, but the combat v. human thing is just painful compared to what is now common in the action industry).
    It is yes, but to me its still better than the tiger & Naga combat. I played the game again yesterday and I was just astounded of what a total mess this was... I believe I produced some swear words that would make the Angry Video Game Nerd proud.

    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    Well, I want to see enemies that require upgrading/adaption to survive against, or something. (Just so this fits in with the RPG topic :P). Seriously on that idea, though; the boss guy might be dodgeable but not beatable until the player gets skills; and shooting at him makes him run away or something like that.
    Anyway, the most important thing, at least, is for the enemies to want to survive, not just stand in the open.
    It depends.... I don't see a giant tank-like guy with a minigun and body armour jump behind a pillar: he just stands in the middle ot the room and trusts into his own beefyness and the insane power of his weapon...

    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    It would be lovely to see the style of enemy you describe; having a character every bit as good as Lara, able to jump, traverse ledges, etc. following Lara or racing ahead of Lara. (There were enemies that could do that before in TR; they worked well). The only downside to having just a handful of unsupported bad guys is combat across a whole game would get tedious, or dull. Keep the dozen or so elite elite guys, but I think it would be good if there were intelligent squads of AI enemies that were a challenge to kill as well. (I'm not sure if you've played any of the Brothers in Arms games,
    No actually, I prefer to mind my own business in FPS's, but to me there is no need for much combat in Tr, I just want the little there is it to be good....
    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    What you 'fancy' is clean combat, rather than being "raped by tigers", which isn't particularly your fault. Combat in Shooters (Crysis/CoD) is clean in its implementation.

    I would suggest that if the non-ledge acrobatics (which pretty much suck with CD's engine, which is built upon jumping from ledge to ledge) were improved, it could allow combat along the lines of the Core games, which was better than what TR has at the moment. Might not work so well against human enemies, but against non humans it would be "cleaner". (More responsibility on the player to dodge, rather than to shoot before needing to dodge).
    Shooter style combat could work in TR, though. I think Auto-aim is a tradition/trademark of the series, though, and so any combat would have to be workable from that. It would be a shame if combat were so intense in itself that it became so separate from the platforming things.
    I'm not really sure what you mean with the Core D combat, but I think that if a better alternative exists, the developers should forget about trademarks (Yeah sorry, I again bring up the conservative-thing). But don't you think that if the quantity of the combat is really toned down to a minimum (like ten tough enemies) it can be sophisticated without taking over the main gamepley feeling?

  17. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Jurre View Post
    But many shoot them up games who feature mostly ranged enemies also have their share of melee enemies, and it usualy works fine...
    What I meant was that although I was satisfied with the combat vs. non-human enemies in TR:U, the combat vs. humans needed to be way better. It is acceptable for the player to be jumping around, doing acrobatics fighting tigers, etc. it makes sense within itself, whereas against enemies that can shoot from a distance, charging at them in the open is not a good idea. They are two different styles of combat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurre View Post
    No actually, I prefer to mind my own business in FPS's, but to me there is no need for much combat in Tr, I just want the little there is it to be good.
    ....
    I'm not really sure what you mean with the Core D combat, but I think that if a better alternative exists, the developers should forget about trademarks (Yeah sorry, I again bring up the conservative-thing). But don't you think that if the quantity of the combat is really toned down to a minimum (like ten tough enemies) it can be sophisticated without taking over the main gamepley feeling?
    Tradition/conservative only has bearing on discussion of combat if it affects other features; so long as there is not a forced over-emphasis on combat, it should be fine whatever they choose to do.
    CoreD combat was all about style; you could run at the enemy and jump over it, or strafe the enemy while running, jumping etc. it was pretty neat. An updated version of that would not be so bad, it is stronger than TR:U's system in many respects. (The tigers aren't as bad as in Thailand).
    As for quantity of combat; Well, I think that a lot of the people who are fans of TR:L (& UDF) are fans of the combat. I think better combat is something anyone can appreciate; but for those that are in it for the combat few enemies can be a pretty bad thing. The ten uber-enemies would somehow have to appear multiple times within a game. Ten tough enemies, but perhaps give them subordinates who you can kill to make them go away, or something. I'm pretty sure that ten times in a game wouldn't be enough.

  18. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    What I meant was that although I was satisfied with the combat vs. non-human enemies in TR:U, the combat vs. humans needed to be way better. It is acceptable for the player to be jumping around, doing acrobatics fighting tigers, etc. it makes sense within itself, whereas against enemies that can shoot from a distance, charging at them in the open is not a good idea.
    Well, actually... thats what I use to do -when I'm out of stick bombs- because I can do the headshot from nearby... Anyway, I guess we have to agree to disagree on the non-human combat part.

    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    CoreD combat was all about style; you could run at the enemy and jump over it, or strafe the enemy while running, jumping etc. it was pretty neat. An updated version of that would not be so bad, it is stronger than TR:U's system in many respects. (The tigers aren't as bad as in Thailand).
    Don't you think it also has to do something with the game speed? the early games were slower so avoiding a tiger was easier?
    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    As for quantity of combat; Well, I think that a lot of the people who are fans of TR:L (& UDF) are fans of the combat. I think better combat is something anyone can appreciate; but for those that are in it for the combat few enemies can be a pretty bad thing. The ten uber-enemies would somehow have to appear multiple times within a game. Ten tough enemies, but perhaps give them subordinates who you can kill to make them go away, or something. I'm pretty sure that ten times in a game wouldn't be enough.
    Well it is to me but who am I....

  19. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Jurre View Post
    Well, actually... thats what I use to do -when I'm out of stick bombs- because I can do the headshot from nearby... Anyway, I guess we have to agree to disagree on the non-human combat part.
    I call it communication differences, but whatever. It's hot here and I can't be bothered to explain. :P

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurre View Post
    Don't you think it also has to do something with the game speed? the early games were slower so avoiding a tiger was easier?
    Perhaps. The biggest part in that, though, would be the jumping. In Core games she goes so high it's almost like flying; it's quite neat. She can vault that high on ledges in the new games, but because of the engine design, she won't do that normally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurre View Post
    Well it is to me but who am I....
    You're just 1 person, and so am I. It might be enough to me as well; I thought the combat, up 'till Thor's hammer, was pretty good, though. I think that perhaps for most "TR fans" a dozen guys might be enough, but for the more action-oriented I don't think it would make the cut. It would need to be well done, though, I think. A dozen encounters with the enemy throughout the whole game seems pretty slim

  20. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    Perhaps. The biggest part in that, though, would be the jumping. In Core games she goes so high it's almost like flying; it's quite neat. She can vault that high on ledges in the new games, but because of the engine design, she won't do that normally.
    Oh, yes,.... well, there you go: its an example of what I think should be corrected to match with the modern game-world...

    Quote Originally Posted by rg_001100 View Post
    You're just 1 person, and so am I. It might be enough to me as well; I thought the combat, up 'till Thor's hammer, was pretty good, though. I think that perhaps for most "TR fans" a dozen guys might be enough, but for the more action-oriented I don't think it would make the cut. It would need to be well done, though, I think. A dozen encounters with the enemy throughout the whole game seems pretty slim
    I think what worked out very well in the first level, and I have to give them credit for that, is that all the enemies came at once in one big action sequence. It has a much bigger impact and thrill-ride -especially with a catchy tune underneath it- than if they were scattered all over the level and you'll encounter them one or two at the time. At also makes more fictional sense... In the kraken-caves were no true enemies and I didn't miss them at all...

  21. #96
    off topic much
    no rpg elements, it better with-out
    cba to walk around talking for hours talkng to local villargers, i want to explore a tomb, shoot things and get the artefact (and as TR games go save the world)
    upgrading weapons isn needed, lara is known for her pistols not upgradable P90 with lasersight and attachable knife.
    i hated aod's ability upgrades, lara is always at top form, she dont have a fat gym in her house for no reason.now does she?

    and joining in on the combat talk
    i say loose the human enemys, jumping around dodgng large cats is a tomb raider thing, name another game that uses that does that..
    if human enemys are a must make them a boss or mini-boss.

  22. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinnyskeans View Post
    jumping around dodgng large cats is a tomb raider thing, name another game that uses that does that...
    I'm guessing u didn't play Metal Gear Solid 3. Ok that game had some amazing pseudoRPG lite gameplay. But more importantly it had..... hunting or being hunted . For example the legendary sniper battle with The End in a free roaming silver birch forest on the borders of Russia. If CD were REALLY clever they could try a basic MGS3 style hunting/ stalking level say;

    Put Lara in a free roaming lakeside forest in Europe somewhere and get her to stalk some mythical part human animal like say a centaur or satyr by looking at footprints/ tracking it / LISTENING for it etc ...or following its trail of damage

    & this is a good idea for any boss battle - u hunt the enemy in a free roaming landscape. Or it hunts U .

    OMG I'm so great

  23. #98
    (Sorry, I only play PC games.)
    And the last PC game that I enjoyed for some light RPG and stealth was Thief3 (Thief Deadly Shadows).
    Just try that damn nice castle demo and get into Ghosting it, completely.

    In that simple old T3 game, you can actually sneak around or if found, lose your enemy, realistically.
    In TRA, I saw zero stealth abilities and completely locked-on enemies after you simply got near them.
    (And you'd have to climb-up, high enough or use TRAfly to "escape" their tracking ability.)
    So, a nice and realistic "hunt in the woods" might be impossible with their current AI?

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

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