Block pushing is so 1996. Now we're in to cross bows: TOMB RAIDER

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Block pushing is so 1996. Now we're in to cross bows: TOMB RAIDER

«‹›3 »

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Based on those videos, I just hope to Christ you can turn off all the annoying HUD poo poo. 'Expert Killer Bonus +++ Ur Awesome + 5000 Dick Points!' That poo poo is going to get old quick.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2013 00:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:10

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

DangerKat posted:

Going off of Eurogamer's review, you cannot.

Well, I'm getting it on the PC so hopefully there's a quick mod fix, like with what happened to Far Cry 3.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2013 06:04

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Spalec posted:

Is there just the one, pre-canned animation for those bits? That's a shame. It's cool the first time but if those bits are difficult it will lose its appear seeing it for the 32nd time.

Going by various youtube channels, it won't for everyone! :shepface:

# ¿ Feb 26, 2013 19:31

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

TheCoon posted:

Square have been teasing a new DirectX 11 feature for this game and it ended up being some new hair tech from AMD called tressfx:

It's a shame this is coming out after Triple H cut his hair.

An AMD technology? Does this mean I won't get that cool hair stuff with my Nvidia card?

# ¿ Feb 26, 2013 20:16

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Man I'm stoked as hell for this game, but I don't really get you guys being so dismissive about this game. I've played the hell out of all the REs, Silent Hill series, several Mortal Kombats including the most recent gruesome as hell one, and that kill where Lara slides down the water and gets impaled through the head and dies a painful, gurgling death is the first time a game death has actually made my stomach churn. Most people have thresholds and if you can't understand why this might push it for some folks, then I don't know what to tell you.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 08:09

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

HenessyHero posted:

Clearly none of you did swan dives off a high ledge onto sharp, rocky ground when you were bored or stuck in the original.

Are you trolling, or are you just being willfully obtuse about this? Like, can you not see why a ten polygon primitive model of Lara ragdolling at the bottom of a cliff in a game from 1997 is somehow a little different than a near photorealistic person being graphically impaled on a spike?

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 15:39

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Chillmatic posted:

Sorry but he/she's right.

It really is hilarious how everyone's sharting their jorts over these death scenes when as videogamers we've been subjected to much, much worse over the years with barely an ounce of protest.

Giant dude getting sawed in half = a-ok
Lara Croft dying in other violent ways = an outrage, "very uncomfortable" etc.

And isn't it interesting how in past years it was perfectly fine to dehumanize Lara Croft to a simple walking set of tits with no real voice or story, but now there's outrage when we see some seriously bad poo poo happening to that same walking pair of tits-- when we see the human being behind the facade?

Between the reaction to that and the embarrassingly pervy Conan video review, I'd say we've more or less been shown a loving clinic on the problems the video game industry and a lot of gamers have with how they view women.

For my money, I applaud what the dev is going for here.

It's almost like... There's a difference between cartoonish over the top violence, and realistic depictions of a human looking character dying in horrific ways!

For what it's worth, the first time I stepped into a spike trap in Uncharted, I thought, "there's no way this game should have gotten away with a T rating." I'm not personally bothered by violence, but I think it's distressing how much gamers take increasingly graphic violence as a given.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 16:38

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

bloodysabbath posted:

Since you brought up Saw, another thing is that shows and movies and books and comics and songs and literally everything else have been using violence as they see fit for years and years. Saw became the most successful horror franchise in history, and you do not see a fraction of the handwringing over the violence done to humans by other humans in The Walking Dead, a.k.a., cable's top show, that you do over video games.

For me, that's what makes every new "conversation" about violent/controversial video game "x" tiresome and pointless: When we respond to violence in video games differently/more intesely than we do to violence in other mediums, when we act as if video game developers have some sort of unique moral obligation to tone down their product that we don't place on any given stupid direct to DVD movie you can rent from Redbox, we are just playing into this stupid notion that games have not yet "earned" their legitimacy, or whatever.

In the world of third person shooters, there is room for Indiana Jones (Uncharted), and there is room for I Spit on Your Grave (Tomb Raider - though I don't think there is anything close to the atrocity in that film, or Kotaku would have already written a 30 page thesis about it), and there is room for Man on Fire (Max Payne 3), and there is room for a crazy mashup of Dawn of the Dead with The Road (The Last of Us). I totally respect the right of individuals to pass on material that doesn't appeal to them for any reason, from violence to theme to a texture flickering the wrong way, but none of these works have any obligation to justify their creative directions to people who think there is some sort of special standard of proof on video games.

edit: Actually I don't really want to go there, but I agree with Dan Didio.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 17:29

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Chillmatic posted:

No, only like an hour or so, if even that.

And besides, I have literally no idea how someone can call a 19 year old woman with broken ribs, guns and a bow and arrow and covered in the blood of her enemies a "scared little girl." Like I said earlier, that's incredibly telling of how one views women in general.

"You guys that are uncomfortable watching a young woman die via incredibly graphic ways are the true misogynists." :smug:

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 18:07

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Chillmatic posted:

I dare you to call a woman who looks like Lara Croft and who has just shotgunned off the face of some mook a "scared little girl." Seriously.

If you find yourself not wanting to call her that, well gosh I wonder why!

And to you guys saying "that's the way the game's been marketed" I don't know what to tell you. I think it's more an issue of that's what's made the biggest impact on you. Most of what I've seen has Laura falling through airplanes, skydiving, shootin' dudes in the face, cuttin' dudes throats, pulling metal spikes out of her own abdomen, falling some more, shootin' more dudes, and so on.

What part of that says "scared little girl" to any of you?

I'm not the one who called her a "scared little girl," but the gameplay is at odds with the story and I'm glad you pointed it out!

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 18:22

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

coyo7e posted:

I'm lost, which is the scared little girl part then, the story or the gameplay? The story is pretty much Far Cry 3 without the tattoos and sexing up a tribal priestess, from what I've seen.

Well, it's supposed to be her 'origin story,' so gets all weepy when she has to kill a dude or an animal or whatever, but when you're actually playing the game you'll be rewarded for sick executions and brutal headshots or w/e complete with experience pop-ups telling you what a badass killer you are.

edit: As an aside, this is what I disliked about Uncharted. It was the best Indiana Jones movie since The Last Crusade, but Nathan Drake kills literally thousands of dudes across three adventures. It's inhuman. These games have the opportunity to sprinkle limited enemy encounters throughout an adventure experience, with puzzles and exploration at the heart of the gameplay, but they're more content to give us Gears of War with a jungle skin.

Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Feb 27, 2013

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 18:27

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Douche Wolf 89 posted:

I refused to buy Dead Island because of a single coder being a misogynistic rear end in a top hat and even I'm finding this thread insufferable.

I think it's pretty cool that we can have these kinds of discussions, actually. I think ~~people~~goons get weirdly defensive of video games and treat criticism as some kind of personal attack.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 19:24

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

^True, but I think the sheer volume and callousness plays into it as well. You reward the gamer through trophies and experience for headshots, 'brutal kills,' et cetera, but then you craft this well done story and expect us not to feel a weird disconnect there?^

Samurai Sanders posted:

Still, the worst one for me is definitely Uncharted, Drake can't be both a scrappy, fun-loving guy and also capable of killing ten enemies at once over and over again. The needs of the gameplay and the needs of the story don't match up at all, one should have been changed to match the other I think.

I said this last page, but Uncharted would have been a far more interesting game if there was a lot less combat and a more heavy focus on exploration/puzzle solving. And based on the review footage from this game, I imagine I'll feel the same about it.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 19:37

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

ZeeBoi posted:

This is why most games don't have a female lead: insufferable nerds complaining about misogyny, sexism, etc.

Get a life.

Onto a different topic: has anyone else that pre-ordered do the Scavenger Hunt? The challenges were pretty easy with multiple choice questions, the fun added part were the photo challenges.

Cool, thanks for contributing to this discussion with your thoughtful insight. It certainly can't be that publishers are concerned that their games won't sell if they don't have a white male protaganist, it's the fault of whiny nerds!

You are a loving moron.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 21:11

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Hizawk posted:

This game is going to loving own and I can't wait for the pre-load to start!

Has there been any word on when that's happening? Last I heard was 'hopefully before the weekend.'

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 21:25

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Dan Didio posted:

After reading this and being utterly perplexed that someone would describe Legend as their favorite game ever, I went to purchase it to refresh my memory and found that apparently only Underworld and Anniversary are available on Games on Demand.

I wonder if it's a regional thing, because Legend is on sale for 5 dollars right now in the US via GOD.

:australia:

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 21:45

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Hakkesshu posted:

No, it doesn't. Just the multiplayer, which I'm sure is practically dead a week after release.

I'm extremely skeptical of multiplayer in a game like this, but it looks like Uncharted with a little Assassin's Creed flavor mixed in, and given how surprisingly good the ME3 multiplayer was, I'm going to at least give it a shot. If it sucks, it sucks, but thanks the Mass Effect I'm no longer writing off bizarre multiplayer decisions from the word go.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2013 19:10

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Great Rumbler posted:

I sense this becoming a euphemism used for whenever something that sounds good turns out badly.

"We really had a lot of hope for the new product launch, unfortunately marketing for it was outsourced to Time Gate."

Who is Time Gate? I'm in the dark on this.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2013 22:49

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Dan Didio posted:

A studio with a less than stellar output who allegedly did most of the work on Aliens: Colonial Marines after Gearbox scarpered with all the money for the project.

I gathered the bolded part myself, but have they done anything other than A:CM? If they were passed off a problematic project with little money or time to finish, I find it hard to imagine that's truly their fault.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2013 22:52

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Dan Didio posted:

That's really why I didn't want to say anything too negative. It's already near impossible to parse what blame lies where.

Prior to this, the only real credits to their name are the F.E.A.R. expansion packs and the Section 8 series.

Huh, I heard the Section 8 games were actually pretty rad multiplayer games, so maybe farming mp out to them wouldn't be a bad deal...

And since when are you afraid of saying anything negative? :laugh:

# ¿ Feb 28, 2013 22:59

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Rookersh posted:

They made the Kohan series, the FEAR expansion packs, and the Section 8 games.

Honestly, from all accounts they aren't a bad studio. The Kohan games were some of the best RTS games of yesteryear, and the multiplayer of both Section 8 games was remarkably well done. Yes, the singleplayer was less then steller, but it was never meant to be the focus of those games, and they've said as such. Heck, for something they've said they barely worked on, the Prejudice campaign is actually really good, and several times better then A:CM, proving they can pull it off.

I'm not really sure where he's going with that comment. From all the info that's come out on A:CM, it's currently pointing towards Gearbox and Sega as the problems, not TG. And considering Prejudice is actually a good game in both single and multiplayer, and A:CM takes no cues from that, while DNF was a shitheap, and all the design decisions of A:CM pull from that same sheet, I'm going to believe it.

I guess it's neither here nor there, since they didn't outsource to Time Gate. I'm going to remain approximately 64% optimistic about TR multiplayer at this point.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2013 23:12

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Great Rumbler posted:

That's the point, though. The line isn't a dig against Time Gate, it's a dig against using that as an excuse for why everything went wrong.

"I'm sorry about the wreck, Ted, but it turns out the crankshaft on your Camaro was outsourced to Time Gate."

It's me, I'm the retard who didn't get it. If it's even close to being as fun as Uncharted and there's a CoD like progression system, I can definitely see myself wasting some time with it.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2013 23:32

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

A couple pages back there were some screenshots of Lara's hair using some fancy new technology developed by AMD. So even if the port sucks, the hair will look really nice!

:pcgaming:

# ¿ Mar 1, 2013 17:37

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

It seems to be the current trend in game reviews (for like, a long time now) that they read very negatively but when it comes to the score it's still like 8 or 9 or something. I don't think game critics really understand what they are doing.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2013 18:49

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

MadScientistWorking posted:

Honestly most of the criticism that he directs of that game really wouldn't necessarily detract from the enjoyment of it which its why its probably rated so highly.

It really sounds like he's pointing out pretty clearly that the story is at times at odds with the gameplay, but that's something this thread had pretty well assumed pages ago.

Dominic White posted:

Yeah, critics are being especially critical of this game because it's a highly controversial reboot (especially considering the PR clusterfuck surrounding it), and there doesn't seem to have been any of the PR lock-step stuff that surrounded DmC. More often than not it's also getting given to the more outspoken female reviewers for each site, and they're picking it apart for issues.

At the end of the day, they still can't find much to seriously complain about, other than there being a degree of thematic/gameplay disconnect (and that's going to be the case for almost any action game for quite some time to come), and the now-seemingly-mandatory trend of popping up a reward message every time you do anything.

I think it's a good sign if they're being so serious about it, but still ending up declaring it a good/great game. The reviewer over at The Escapist was talking about it at length in the comments/forum thread after the review, and mentioned that as jarring as it might have felt to transition from terrified survivor to murder-tornado, she really liked the combat.

Oh, come the gently caress on. Like those aren't a legit thing to discuss in a Tomb Raider game of all things, especially one hoping to reboot the series in a "more serious, mature" direction.

Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Mar 1, 2013

# ¿ Mar 1, 2013 19:05

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Dominic White posted:

You misunderstand me. I think it's a great thing. I'm one of those guys constantly being yelled at for being a 'white knight' or 'feminazi sympathizer' for having the nerve to suggest that women might want to have a say in this industry, or even just be considered as equals.

Lara Croft is one of the few female videogame icons out there. Having the women of the industry have their say about how well they've handled the reboot is a very good idea.

Well, your next paragraph went on the say how much the game was going to rule and that you weren't worried about the reviews, so... I guess that's why I misunderstood you?

Personally I think the game looks enjoyable enough; not perfect, but a step in the right direction. A baby step, maybe, but I hope it does well enough that we see continued improvements.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2013 19:17

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

p.crestmont posted:

Yeah, I read 9's as "pretty fun for the most part" and 8's as "painfully average but playable if you like the genre". Anything less than an 8 is basically saying the game is trash and should be avoided.

Honestly I rarely read reviews these days. If there's a game that I'm not totally sure of, I'll just wait for it to come out and see what the goon consensus is. It doesn't always work, especially for deeply divisive games like Deadly Premonition, but I know what I like and it's pretty easy to seperate the chaff from the wheat in opinions.

edit: I will agree that these early reviews for Tomb Raider are heartening in their depth and how readily they are addressing the story/gameplay disconnect.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2013 19:37

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

miscellaneous14 posted:

This is the thing, after the whole DmC fiasco, I officially have no confidence in reviewer scores whatsoever. Anything from 6-10 could mean the game is just mediocre and ultimately shallow at the end of the day. The only time triple-A releases are going to get lower than that is if they're unplayable (A: CM) or are virtually flipping you the bird most of the time (RE6). So the high reviews for this game tell me absolutely nothing other than it has a lot of money behind it.

It could just be me projecting, but I feel like we're going to see a steady increase in consumer lack of confidence in game reviews as long as the industry continues to ignore the issues pervading it (yes man culture propagated by publishers, fear of constructive criticism, amateur journalists with no writing skills, etc).

I think we're likely to see this slowly become par for the course for all other media as time goes on, rather than see game criticism get better. I may just be a cynic, but I don't think society is actually going to improve in the realm of arts criticism at this point.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2013 22:03

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Bland posted:

Borderlands 2 reviewers praising the game's humour

Don't worry Bland, one day you'll break through that robot programming and discover what it means to laugh.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2013 17:07

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

User0015 posted:

When I first read this review, I didn't like it very much. No focus on the mechanics at all. Game's are a sum of mechanics unlike other forms of media, so neglecting that feels like a weak review. You wouldn't see a movie review solely discuss the mechanics of a movie: prop design, number of actors, number of chapters and scenes, etc..., so why should a game review drop all intent on reviewing the mechanics?

On second thought, what's the point of a game? To engage the player. And here, the reviewer routinely reminds us how much she cared when something happened in the game. The character Lara, her trials and struggles, the events surrounding her and the other people in the story. She's completely engaged in that, and she levies her criticism at the game when it fails to keep her engaged by pandering with the camera and such. All in all, it's not really the mechanics of the game that matter, but how engaged the player is with the game as a whole. Given her review in that light, maybe reviewing mechanics isn't really necessary after all and it simply comes down to how engaged a player is with the game? Interesting piece.

I think you have a good point. I think that the mechanics I like best in games are intuitive enough that I'm not actively thinking about them, but rather spending time becoming engaged with the environments and the characters that populate them. If I am spending too much time learning the mechanics or dealing with a less than intuitive camera or interface, then they've hosed up. This obviously isn't true for some games, but it's definitely something to consider when it comes to games that attempt to draw you in to the story.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2013 20:59

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Zombies' Downfall posted:

How is this not a AAA title? How does it not have a marketing push?

You said:

Tomb Raider is a AAA game. Why do you believe there's a double standard, and that it's impossible for the majority of critics to have simply preferred DmC?

Am I just completely misunderstanding your perspective?

He's suggesting that Capcom's people paid up. Is that clear enough?

# ¿ Mar 3, 2013 02:55

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Zombies' Downfall posted:

Yeah, that's what I thought he was saying. I just prefer people quantify perspectives like that instead of spouting conspiratorial nonsense. Where was Capcom's hush money when Resident Evil 6 came out a few months earlier?

He seemed to be suggesting that this is always the case with AAA games, while using Tomb Raider (a AAA game) as an example of a game that gets hosed over by it, and ignoring Resident Evil 6 (a AAA game from the same publisher as DmC) which got critically savaged.

One only needs to go back and take a look at the Kane and Lynch fiasco to see that there's a bit of truth to "conspiratorial nonsense."

I mean, I think this is kind of a silly argument in the first place, considering the reviews for Tomb Raider have been overwhelmingly positive so far, with minor quibbles made for issues surrounding objectification (to the surprise of basically no one) and disparities in tone between story/gameplay (to the surprise of no one who's kept up with the marketing for this game). But it doesn't mean that reviews aren't bought and paid for in this industry.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2013 03:04

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Zombies' Downfall posted:

Yeah, it's clearly rampant and universal.

Except regarding Resident Evil 6. And Tomb Raider, the game this thread is about. So it, you know, isn't universal.

I'm not saying it isn't a problem or a thing that happens, but even if you make the claim that all the DmC reviews were flat-out bought (which "but it's a bad game!" is an insufficient proof for), it's crazy to extend that to every review and every reviewer. It's also fallacious to say that the fortunes of these games are tied to those reviews, because DmC is selling poorly despite its high review scores. If Capcom paid everybody who loved DmC off, they sure wasted a shitload of money.

What are you on about? No one has made the crazy claim that it happens 100% of the time. Did you just wander in this thread to pointlessly argue or are you that driven to white knight reviews for a lovely game?

# ¿ Mar 3, 2013 03:31

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

RentCavalier posted:

The thing is, a good critic's goal is to disseminate a product, be it a book, movie, song or game, and explain to the viewer why it is/is not worth their time. For a video game, this requires even more, since a good reviewer should be able to explain a hard-to-understand game to their audience, or at the very least take the effort to learn the game.

Resident Evil 6 is the best modern example I can think of--the game has one, fairly small, flaw in that it doesn't really explain its core mechanics very well, especially dodge moves. Because of this, game reviewers shat on the game because they didn't understand how it worked, and covered that lack of understanding by saying idiotic things like "this doesn't FEEL like a Resident Evil game" and "enemies don't react to gunfire!" despite the former being a kind of superfluous statement considering how radically RE has changed between 4 and 6, and the latter is proof positive of just how badly they failed to understand the game, since every enemy DOES have a means to stun it with gunfire, but like every previous RE game with the new engine, you have to carefully aim at the appropriate individual limb to do so.

A reviewer dismissed Nier because he didn't think to check his map, nor did he bother to really attempt to understand the task he was having trouble with. His review focuses entirely on this one incident in the game, extrapolating wildly from it. This is lazy reviewing, but since games reviewers serve a gatekeeper role between the industry and the audience, it means that a good game that was already criminally undermarketed ends up being dismissed as garbage without even a decent explanation as to why.

If the game fails to communicate that to the average player, much less to someone who makes their living playing and writing about games, then it has failed on a basic level. Look, I'm sure I'll give RE 6 another go at some point, but it's a pretty big letdown following 4 and to a lesser extent 5, and for good reason. Nier may have a brilliant storyline that goons love to champion or whatever, but Cavia failed to make it any loving fun to play.

It's okay to like these games and tell us why you did, but don't act surprised and indignant that they didn't review well.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2013 06:58

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Dan Didio posted:

It varies. A handful each, usually, but there's also more sorts of collectibles and challenges on top of that.

It's really great to hear there is more to the collectibles than just collecting them. Nothing was as terrible as the flags in the first Assassin's Creed.

I think I'll be unlocking via Aussie VPN tonight.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2013 19:31

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

teagone posted:

I kind of wish there was an option to replay certain parts. The forest at night area with all the tree platforms that a few goons mentioned where you can be a stealthy stalker was also one of my favorite bits. Also yeah, hoping for more tombs via DLC.

gently caress, I'd love an option to play through some of the set pieces again, like the rapids descent.

DLC for this game should be good, but I'm definitely more eager to see what's next for the character at this point. A little more hardened, maybe a return to globetrotting.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2013 00:43

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

watt par posted:

Also, the developers really missed out on a prime marketing opportunity not naming the game Escape From Rape Island.

I hope you've got a good agent, because you should be taking this kind of fresh humor out on the road! :razz:

# ¿ Mar 12, 2013 04:11

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

These were by far the easiest QTEs I've ever encountered in a game, period. I don't think I died to a single one. But then again, I was using a 360 controller and it sounds like a lot of the frustrated people in this thread were using mouse and keyboard.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2013 07:55

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Careful Sally posted:

Finished this game a few days ago and absolutely adored it. I have been a fan of Lara Croft since the beginning and didn't expect much of this, but was blown away by how much it felt like a Tomb Raider game. The woman who voiced Lara was perfect. I have never played any of the Uncharted games so I'm not sure how much of a copy it is or isn't. The optional tombs were fun (my favorite was the windy temple one), but I felt that they became easier the more I progressed through the game. As someone who is terrible at FPS games, I am relieved that the pew-pew-pew sections weren't too frustrating. I restarted instances frequently to see the different ways that I could attack, specifically if I could be more stealthy or sneaky (even though Lara Croft was never really all that stealthy -- the early Tomb Raider games even had auto-aim).

Spoiler about weapon upgrade: The part where you get the flame arrows and then are forced into a massive fight with a bunch of enemies, I about fell over when she took out her bow and arrow to show off the flame arrows -- why would you do that?! That's one instance where I just pulled out my automatic rifle and just plowed them down with bullets.

Sounds like someone missed a few courses in badass. In case you didn't notice, the camera goes in to slow motion and the dudes shooting at you are standing knee deep in jet fuel.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2013 20:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:10

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

CheechLizard posted:

am I the only one who... no. no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSK7z_UI0hc

Jesus H. Christ. gently caress everything.

"Not impossible to masturbate to." :gonk:

# ¿ Mar 16, 2013 21:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Block pushing is so 1996. Now we're in to cross bows: TOMB RAIDER

«‹›3 »