It's funny how he thinks we're the same person because his view of the world is so narrow he can't imagine more than one person thinking poorly about LAU genuinely schizophrenic tiers of delusional when he can just look at the IP count and how many words were typed LMAO LAUtards really are sub 80iq huh?
Even though this pic isn't actually accurately referencing any particular level it's true for the most part, and Legend arguably more accurately applies to the right side than anniversary or Underworld. Anniversary gets zero credit, it's linear, despite broadly imitating the visual design of TR1 levels (which results in a surface level "openness" but none of the actual mechanical openness that TR1 is exemplary at) makes it so that morons with sub 80iq can pretend it's not linear and brainless, while not adding anything substantially new, it just modernizes and removes the depth of levels.
Just look at Palace of Midas fire room level vs Anniversary.
Anniversary fire room level is so bloated and tries to do so much without any of it actually meaning anything. Ask anybody whos played both games and isn't moronic and they'll tell you TR1's level was much harder and more engaging.
>and more engaging.
Shit controls are the only thing making that level hard.
It's a series of extremely basic jumps, rendered hard by a character moving like an old lady with osteoporosis.
You might as well play QWOP or Getting Over It for a similar experience.
Anniversary is the usual idiot-proof modern game, but it doesn't make the old ones age any better.
the controls arent shit. they're fairly responsive except for the delayed input while doing a running jump in TR1, which is fixed in TR2 & beyond. the game is like Goldeneye or Doom where it's designed very well around it's constraints.
Everything is simplified and made slow BECAUSE the controls are shit, but i know you Coregays will never let this cope go, it's been more than 20 years now.
Same with the amazing "labyrinthian" level design, it's only hard to understand because the graphics are shit and everything looks like it's made out of the same 5 blocks.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Everything is simplified
every action game is simple. but lara's slow and calculated movement separates gives a weighty feel behind it. >amazing "labyrinthian" level design
nowhere near as bad as dungeon crawlers of ye old where the same sprite tile was used every five feet and its legit a maze that you cant understand unless you used an automap or a guide. TR's levels are simple enough to navigate without a map but designed to require some thought in exploration still. it's a good balance of old and new design within that time. >the graphics are shit
i wont disagree. TR looks pretty sterile.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not arguing that TR was bad at the time it came out.
Most 3d games aside from Mario 64 and a few others controlled like shit anyway, at the time.
I played them all when they came out and, at the time, loved them enough to become a fan.
What i'm saying is that they aged like shit, and that Coregays are retroactively glorifying a control system that was not particularly good, and was accepted mostly because the competition was doing even worse.
The idea that LAU's dumbed down (even though Underworld already offers more variety than Anniversary) general design is a byproduct of having a more fluid movement scheme, is just untrue, which is what i find annoying about Coregays' usual arguments.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm not arguing that TR was bad at the time it came out.
arguing against the easy arguments where nobody will actually go indepth into the controls and what makes them work? The controls are objectively functional. That's all that matters, everything else is a learning curve, the game never wrestles control from the players, it's not like Soul Reaver where the range that your camera can move is horizontally limited and inconsistent, and where your jumps in that game are awkward and not precise.
I legit don't understand how so many morons get filtered so hard by these controls when they're some of THE most consistent and precise controls ever. M64 controls are genuine fricking dogshit, Mario always feels like a moronicly slippy fricking child who can't manage his own weight, it just that his controls have such a low skillfloor and allow you to do so much with so little input that the breadth makes up for the lack of depth.
Regardless, it's not like you can make any argument except reaffirming your own unjustified premise lmao. No amount of "THEYRE SHIT BECAUSE I DONT LIKE THEM AND THEY JUST HAVENT AGED WELL OKAY? THEY JUST HAVENT?" can mean anything in the face of "Every control and input is controlled and precise and in the players control, any improper input is the fault of the player."
11 months ago
Anonymous
>arguing against the easy arguments where nobody will actually go indepth into the controls and what makes them work?
I didn't argue with your post (
>Shit controls are the only thing making that level hard
calling them shit doesn't make them shit, I could objectively prove how they're not, but I'm not sure I want to waste my time with you, regardless I'll prove how your entire argument is fundamentally moronic.
>games unique mechanics and considerations that they explicitly designed levels and progression around are the ONLY thing that makes them hard.
Yes, videogames are created, fabricated, and designed experiences. "Artificial Difficulty" is a meaningless terms, every game that isn't EXACTLY like reality is always hard because of deliberate design choices, reality and it's features and laws are the only inherent and unalterable thing. Anything else is the choice of a human being to create something that will never match up to realities depth, but can offer a unique feeling. Even games that try to imitate reality still offer a unique experience from it.
All games are hard or difficult or challenging because they are designed as such, what matters isn't whether somebody could subjectively find a problem with that, there's no reason their subjective opinion is necessarily meaningful, especially if they use objectively wrong terms like "artificial difficulty" to imply their opinion is more substantial than it is. All that matter in a videogame is whether those challenges are fair and can be reasonably dealt with and responded to. (arguably not even necessarily since games like Pathologic and STALKER exist)
And in Tomb Raiders case, it arguably has the best controls for making a game reasonably respondent. It's controls are consistent and deliberate, emphasized even more by its grid based design. You can shimmy your character exactly to the edge of a ledge, to the side of it, etc. You can control exactly which directly Lara will face, due to tank controls giving greater horizontal control You can make consistent distanced jumps and can reach out your hands to grab onto a ledge and always make it
), because your paraphrasing of my post didn't represent what i said, so i didn't bother reading to the retort.
Anyway, i never said TR's controls aren't "functional", whatever that means to you (they preform their function, but that still leave quite a big spectrum between shit and great).
You also seem to imply that consistency is some kind of absolute golden standard that should take precedence over anything else, i don't think that's an objective value at all.
I can agree it's a positive quality, but alone, it doesn't inherently mean the game as great controls.
they're shit because their approach to being "precise" is to lower the ceiling slowing everything down to a crawl, and making everything into crude blocks and simple shapes, no shit they can manage to be "consistent" when you can only think in equally spaced blocks, inclines and ledges for the whole thing.
and they showed their limitation more and more when they kept adding more context sensitive actions in the following titles, like walking on a tight rope et al.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Anyway, i never said TR's controls aren't "functional", whatever that means to you (they preform their function, but that still leave quite a big spectrum between shit and great)
you're so slow is unbelievable. The entire point if you were too slow to understand it, is that literally saying "controls are shit" objectively means nothing. The fact that somebody else can engage with those actions and perform consistent actions, means that controls work.
Oh God, you genuinely don't understand the point of emphasizing consistency FUUUUCK I have to explain 9th grade logic UGHHHH.
Consistency is simply a baseline. I argued about consistency because non of your arguments were particular or indepth, they were vague and surface level, existing solely on the base level.
In Math if: 1+1 = 2 and 1+1 = 3 then the entire system of math breaks down because now the number (1) doesn't equal something clear and defined.
Yes, consistency doesn't mean everything, for example: 77+33 =100 is as consistent as 66+44 = 100 but they are still wrong, because 77, 33, 66, and 44 have no basis for making up 100. There's no reason why these numbers should make up such a sum. But there is a reason 77+33 should = 110 because the basic principle of math is simply counting. You can count to 77 and 33 individually and add them to 110.
But none of this matters if 77 and 33 don't have consistent values in the first place. It becomes even more important when talking about subjective things, because the only way something subjective can be "wrong" is if it's inconsistent, because you would be going back on your own self proposed value.
My point of emphasizing TR controls and functional and consistent is to prove that your subjective opinion is just am opinion, it doesn't mean anything or communicate anything substantial about Tomb Raider, it's an interpretation that tries to feign as objective. TR controls aren't shit. You just don't like them. I'll elaborate briefly in a bit
11 months ago
Anonymous
short continuation of [...]
Objective means "judgement without feelings and personal opinion, referring only to fact"
Subjective means "judgement based solely on personal opinion and feelings, without consideration of fact"
These aren't the exact definitions you'll get when searching it up, but it doesn't matter because it's largely the essence of these words. If you are intelligent and have thought of the meaning of words for any number of time you'll notice something.
Objective refers to "object" and what are objects? External facts of reality. Hence "Objective" Object focused. It focuses on truth about the External world, about the objects of the world.
Subjective refers to "subject" if you understand the English language, subject usually refers to anything with "I, HE, She, They, IT, Jason, Emily" etc. It is essentially referring to a Person. Aka YOURSELF aka "Subjective" means subject focused. It focuses on truth about the Internal world, and how we interpret ourselves and everything in existence. We filter the world through our feelings.
"Controls are dogshit." is different that "I hate the controls" Because one contains an object, and one contains a subject. It is incredibly simple and fundamental, you cannot disagree with a Subjective opinion, because it fundamentally means nothing except what it says about a person. You CAN disagree with an objective claim because it means to define characteristics of an external object uninfluenced by human feelings.
Therefore, my argument isn't against your meaningless personal opinion, it's against you asserting your opinion as if it meaningfully reflects anything about the controls, as if your feelings say anything about the matter other than "I didn't like it" and the same principle applies regarding level design and visual clarity, things I demonstrably showed as false, but you insist on anyway, because your feelings while playing probably overemphasized the few times graphics got in the way.
ur putting way too much effort into your posts on a website that flushes them away after a few hours.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You're right man, but I REALLY like this game, you genuinely don't know how crazy it feels to finally "get it" when boomers say "you had to be there to see what it was like to see 3D for the first time hurr durrr" I didn't get it for a long time, I had no faith in 3D games of old, videogames were nice, but most of my top games were 2010 and above. Not only being surprised and impressed by TR, but being able to understand and appreciate its unique characteristics like tank controls (something I only saw as tedious until TR) is just a crazy feeling.
It's just such an amazing feeling to have your perspective changed by a game, and I haven't felt this way since Dark Souls, most games are just "good and fun" even my top 5 games are mostly made up of games I just find to be really fun and engaging, but to me, games like DS1 (arguably Sekiro to some degree but to a lesser one) and now Tomb Raider, aren't just "good" games to me, they're games that make me see videogames In a different light and appreciate game mechanics I never thought I could like.
To me that's special, and I will sing it's praise forever because of that. I truly connected to this game the way the developers clearly wanted me to. They communicated their message to me and the experience they wanted to express. And that is something that can't be matched by modern games with open words and everything, not in the same way atleast.
11 months ago
Anonymous
The original Tomb Raider is a masterpiece, I knew it then and I know it now. Watching a good speed runner really shows it's hidden depth - It's even possible to complete the game without killing any animals or humans (the abomination thing is neither).
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Watching a good speed runner really shows it's hidden depth
frick me do you really think so? Whenever I watch TR gameplay it always looks so boring and makes the game look way more simple than it actually feels to play in comparison. From a surface level perspective, the LAU and reboot games actually look WAAAAAAAY bigger, but from an actual playing and feeling perspective, classic TR has an unmatched sense of scale (I think it's due to TR1 platforming being way more indepth, meaning you're interacting with the actual platforms and levels way more, in much more elaborate and involved ways)
11 months ago
Anonymous
I suppose I meant depth in the way you traverse the levels in most efficient way. Yes there's a hidden complexity to the platforming which looks simple on the surface but if you've played the game you understand the skill and memory needed to pull it off. For example watch a good speed runner navigate down the tower in St Francis folly.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>For example watch a good speed runner navigate down the tower in St Francis folly
St.Francis Folly really is a genius early level, even for a beginner, it teaches you so much about how to he careful about traversing a level and makes fall damage actually threatening and meaningful in a way most games, and straight up most platformers simply don't. Don't know whether to consider it the best use of verticality in TR1 or not. It's crazy how to this day no modern games can give a similar feeling to climbing down STFF.
11 months ago
Anonymous
short continuation of [...]
Objective means "judgement without feelings and personal opinion, referring only to fact"
Subjective means "judgement based solely on personal opinion and feelings, without consideration of fact"
These aren't the exact definitions you'll get when searching it up, but it doesn't matter because it's largely the essence of these words. If you are intelligent and have thought of the meaning of words for any number of time you'll notice something.
Objective refers to "object" and what are objects? External facts of reality. Hence "Objective" Object focused. It focuses on truth about the External world, about the objects of the world.
Subjective refers to "subject" if you understand the English language, subject usually refers to anything with "I, HE, She, They, IT, Jason, Emily" etc. It is essentially referring to a Person. Aka YOURSELF aka "Subjective" means subject focused. It focuses on truth about the Internal world, and how we interpret ourselves and everything in existence. We filter the world through our feelings.
"Controls are dogshit." is different that "I hate the controls" Because one contains an object, and one contains a subject. It is incredibly simple and fundamental, you cannot disagree with a Subjective opinion, because it fundamentally means nothing except what it says about a person. You CAN disagree with an objective claim because it means to define characteristics of an external object uninfluenced by human feelings.
Therefore, my argument isn't against your meaningless personal opinion, it's against you asserting your opinion as if it meaningfully reflects anything about the controls, as if your feelings say anything about the matter other than "I didn't like it" and the same principle applies regarding level design and visual clarity, things I demonstrably showed as false, but you insist on anyway, because your feelings while playing probably overemphasized the few times graphics got in the way.
Aside from the fact that i never claimed objectivity, and that any person who isn't an autist would understand the colloquial nature of saying "X is shit" as a (subjective) personal opinion, given the context of being on Ganker and not trying to write a 4 hours Youtube Essay about the game, there is still nothing "objective" about the controls of TR being either good or bad, because the nature of what makes them fun or engaging is still purely subjective.
Consistency as a (positive) value is subjective.
Responsiveness as a (positive) value is subjective.
And so on.
If you want to have a discussion about objectivity, you can start and end by saying the controls do what they are programmed to do, and any value judgment beyond that enters subjective territory.
so yes, to me TR's CORE controls aged like shit, because they are needlessly slow, and restrictive, and limited the level design immensely.
I never claimed for them not to be functional in completing the game, nor for this to be a universal truth (some may like the slow pace or blocky, abstract level design).
LAU substitute them with something arguably worse, but that's another argument entirely.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Aside from the fact that i never claimed objectivity, and that any person who isn't an autist would understand the colloquial nature of saying "X is shit" as a (subjective) personal opinion, given the context of being on Ganker and not trying to write a 4 hours Youtube Essay about the game, there is still nothing "objective" about the controls of TR being either good or bad, because the nature of what makes them fun or engaging is still purely subjective.
Consistency as a (positive) value is subjective.
Responsiveness as a (positive) value is subjective.
And so on
missed the entire point. engaged with nothing I said.
>so yes, to me TR's CORE controls aged like shit, because they are needlessly slow, and restrictive, and limited the level design immensely
misses my point, makes implicit objective claim again. Alright I think this convos over lmao, think I dumpstered you enough. You really have nothing to say and can't follow a conversation. The final thing I'll say is this.
When people say "I feel like you're being creepy" Even though this is fundamentally a subjective claim, they are still trying to label/describe X person. Nobody is just going to interpret this as "a perspective" anybody is going to interpret this as a fact of X's character, because by assigning a description to X person, that's what they are doing, they are implying that their perception of them, is a quality they genuinely possess.
Essentially, you can apply something, even if you're not consciously aware that you are, or intended to. Whenever you say "needlessly, slow and restrictive, and limited the design immensely" you are OBJECTIVELY implying that something was unnecessary, without understanding their goals or intent for designing it such a way.
It's like somebody saying
"I really like jenga" and somebody replying
"But it seems pointless and slow to stack up so many blocks if you're going to mess it up eventually"
"Yes, that's the point."
11 months ago
Anonymous
short continuation of
>Anyway, i never said TR's controls aren't "functional", whatever that means to you (they preform their function, but that still leave quite a big spectrum between shit and great)
you're so slow is unbelievable. The entire point if you were too slow to understand it, is that literally saying "controls are shit" objectively means nothing. The fact that somebody else can engage with those actions and perform consistent actions, means that controls work.
Oh God, you genuinely don't understand the point of emphasizing consistency FUUUUCK I have to explain 9th grade logic UGHHHH.
Consistency is simply a baseline. I argued about consistency because non of your arguments were particular or indepth, they were vague and surface level, existing solely on the base level.
In Math if: 1+1 = 2 and 1+1 = 3 then the entire system of math breaks down because now the number (1) doesn't equal something clear and defined.
Yes, consistency doesn't mean everything, for example: 77+33 =100 is as consistent as 66+44 = 100 but they are still wrong, because 77, 33, 66, and 44 have no basis for making up 100. There's no reason why these numbers should make up such a sum. But there is a reason 77+33 should = 110 because the basic principle of math is simply counting. You can count to 77 and 33 individually and add them to 110.
But none of this matters if 77 and 33 don't have consistent values in the first place. It becomes even more important when talking about subjective things, because the only way something subjective can be "wrong" is if it's inconsistent, because you would be going back on your own self proposed value.
My point of emphasizing TR controls and functional and consistent is to prove that your subjective opinion is just am opinion, it doesn't mean anything or communicate anything substantial about Tomb Raider, it's an interpretation that tries to feign as objective. TR controls aren't shit. You just don't like them. I'll elaborate briefly in a bit
Objective means "judgement without feelings and personal opinion, referring only to fact"
Subjective means "judgement based solely on personal opinion and feelings, without consideration of fact"
These aren't the exact definitions you'll get when searching it up, but it doesn't matter because it's largely the essence of these words. If you are intelligent and have thought of the meaning of words for any number of time you'll notice something.
Objective refers to "object" and what are objects? External facts of reality. Hence "Objective" Object focused. It focuses on truth about the External world, about the objects of the world.
Subjective refers to "subject" if you understand the English language, subject usually refers to anything with "I, HE, She, They, IT, Jason, Emily" etc. It is essentially referring to a Person. Aka YOURSELF aka "Subjective" means subject focused. It focuses on truth about the Internal world, and how we interpret ourselves and everything in existence. We filter the world through our feelings.
"Controls are dogshit." is different that "I hate the controls" Because one contains an object, and one contains a subject. It is incredibly simple and fundamental, you cannot disagree with a Subjective opinion, because it fundamentally means nothing except what it says about a person. You CAN disagree with an objective claim because it means to define characteristics of an external object uninfluenced by human feelings.
Therefore, my argument isn't against your meaningless personal opinion, it's against you asserting your opinion as if it meaningfully reflects anything about the controls, as if your feelings say anything about the matter other than "I didn't like it" and the same principle applies regarding level design and visual clarity, things I demonstrably showed as false, but you insist on anyway, because your feelings while playing probably overemphasized the few times graphics got in the way.
11 months ago
Anonymous
This is overblown cope by morons that didn't understand the game or got filtered. Levels like St.Francis Folly, Palace Midas, and Cistern are genuinely huge complex and layered levels with dozens of different directions and paths. The reality is that anybody whos done any exploring in real life will realize that what makes navigating something like a forest hard, isn't just that it's huge and complex.
It's the fact that everything is unclear, despite the fact that objectively none of the trees will look exactly the same, they look similar enough and blend together enough to give that sense of "being lost" a core of navigation is not knowing where you are and where to go because you can go in multiple different ways because of how big something is, and a lack of consistent perspective on where everything is or "should be" you have to create a mental map in your head of where and what things are and distinguish between certain features of the area you're in consciously.
Tomb Raider embodies that same principle, the only early levels I'd argue are difficult to navigate due to Textures is Lost Valley Dino arena, and some of the underground parts of the colosseum. Everything else is overblown cope that can't be objectively substantiated, vs my actual reference to Areas (Palace of Midas, STFF, Cistern) which have clear bock textures. You are objectively wrong and simply got filtered. Tomb Raiders levels ARE complex, they are more than just visually confusing, and even if they were (which they arent for the most part) being visually confusing is a natural aspect of exploration.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Come on buddy, I could figure out TR2 when I was 5. You aren't dumber than a 5 year old are you?
You morons, i'm saying the only complicated thing about these levels is trying to understand where a hole or a grabable ledge is, due to the shit graphics.
I'm saying the exact opposite of what you're implying, in that they're otherwise not that difficult to navigate/figure out.
As an example the waterfall room where you fight shotgun guy in TR1 or the Sphynx room.
>But LAU is worse.
Yes LAU are a cinematic linear games for the most part (Underworld is a bit more open, but still in the same guided ballpark) i'm not denying that at all.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>You morons, i'm saying the only complicated thing about these levels is trying to understand where a hole or a grabable ledge is, due to the shit graphics.
I'm saying the exact opposite of what you're implying, in that they're otherwise not that difficult to navigate/figure out.
why do people do this? Instead of arguing against what somebody is saying they just reaffirm their point and imply it wasn't understood in the first place even though the argument they're responding to is running exactly counter to what they're saying, which it wouldn't be able to unless they understood the point?
Its like saying:
"I think horoscopes are real"
"They're not, that's confirmation bias, they don't fundamentally refer to any direct quality or characteristics of anyone born in those years"
"Yeah but they do to me, and I'm just saying, I think they're legit, how don't you understand that they real for people?"
"Okay but they're not tho...the fact that they don't apply to me is already proof against your thought, what it means is that it HAPPENED to match you, not that it actually meaningfully and reliably refers to anything about your character, or else it would have mapped on to me aswell, you're just using confirmation bias"
"Well they worked for me and for other people so I think they're legit."
"...."
This is what this conversation feels like. I've provided objective proof and examples suggesting that they're difficult to navigate due to more than just being visually confusing, by referring to actual levels in the game that not only have no visual problems in terms of clarity, but also are legitimately just huge and complex with multiple different directions. I even gave an example of real life navigation and how some degree of visual unclarity (made up word for convenience) is fundemental to exploration. You're literally just moronic im sorry.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>This is what this conversation feels like. I've provided objective proof and examples suggesting that they're difficult to navigate due to more than just being visually confusing,
I gave you a couple of examples where the complexity is mainly dictated by shit graphics.
Even in your own screenshot half the level is covered in shadow because os shit draw distance, which is another large part of what makes it so hard to have a "mental map" of the place.
For the time they were impressive levels of course.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>in shadow because os shit draw distance, which is another large part of what makes it so hard to have a "mental map" of the place.
I can't tell if you're actually moronic or not? I fricking KNEW my point about referencing real life navigation was on point. I'll get to this in a bit.
>I gave you a couple of examples where the complexity is mainly dictated by shit graphics
first of all...where? lmao? you haven't actually referenced any recognizable levels or moments where graphical problems get in the way of clarity, while I referenced multiple early levels where they are extremely visually clear
second of all, you haven't even proven against my argument about how "poor" visual clarity is even necessarily bad or a flaw.
Now to return to the first greentext. The reason why your statement is moronic is because navigation in natural life Is made difficult and engaging by the fact that we have limited eyesight, and lacked useful maps before Google maps etc. Which meant we had to go out on our own and contend with reality, figuring out and understanding how a particular area is laid out to navigate it correctly.
This is what is called exploration. Being dropped into an unknown place, developing an understanding of it, and making a mental map to navigate it. People had to navigate in the night, and so they created fire and torches, people had to see farther, and so they created binoculars, people had to navigate in a foggy sea, and so they created lighthouses and compasses. Reality, the limitations of our body and how far we can see and reach is what makes exploration meaningful and CHALLENGING in the first place, having to overcome natural obstacles that arent clear and obvious, is the essence of life and struggle.
And the reason why Tomb Raider hasn't aged poorly is cuz TO THIS DAY videogames still try to replicate that feeling of vast and complex adventure, and fail at it, where Tomb Raider has succeeded despite grid based blocky textures and all
11 months ago
Anonymous
>first of all...where? lmao? you haven't actually referenced any recognizable levels or moments where graphical problems get in the way of clarity,
I mentioned the waterfall room with the shotgun guy and the sphynx room.
Two that came to mind, i haven't played the game in a few years, i'm sure i could name more if i played them again.
>second of all, you haven't even proven against my argument about how "poor" visual clarity is even necessarily bad or a flaw.
This is about "objectivity" again? whether it's good or bad is up to you, i'm saying that's a large part of what makes these levels hard to parse.
>Now to return to the first greentext. The reason why your statement is moronic is because navigation in natural life Is made difficult and engaging by the fact that we have limited eyesight, and lacked useful maps before Google maps etc. Which meant we had to go out on our own and contend with reality, figuring out and understanding how a particular area is laid out to navigate it correctly.
How is something relating to real life inherently good? I don't give a shit about your interpretation of real life exploration.
I mean if you like it that's good for you, but i don't see how that's inherently a good thing.
Especially since the game fails so badly in capturing any other nuance about real life anyway.
Their rendition of Venice for example and their schizophrenic desire to set the game in urban modern areas, while maintaining their level design philosophy (arguably not an issue in 1 and 4, which are all tombs).
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I mentioned the waterfall room with the shotgun guy and the sphynx room
uh sure...I guess I missed that, again I'll say what I said initially, how frequent this is is overblown, how problematic this is, isn't even agreeable, I already gave all the examples about natural exploration you still havent argued against.
>How is something relating to real life inherently good? I don't give a shit about your interpretation of real life exploration
Yes, you are a baby, I understand that you are legitimately stupid wtf???? The entire point is that the basis of the entire concept of exploration comes from real life, when anybody talks about good exploration in videogames they're talking about whether it imitates the concept in real life, not whether it personally appeals to Ganker chatter you don't understand exploration simple. I don't care, I just care that you think your opinion would mean anything in any context or analysis regarding Tomb Raider, you barely understand the games.
Depending on how much a child you are, you'll keep repeating the arguments out of spite that I Invalidated you opinions and claimed they're irrelevant. Regardless, videogames cannot imitate real life perfectly, they never will, so criticizing it for imitating real life doesn't mean anything because it's not. It's bad because it was implemented poorly. TR exploration isn't good because its like real life, it's good because it's got some core videogamey mechanics that replicate feelings of real life like scaling a huge terrain and learning how to use your body effectively. There's a difference
Nobody said anything about making a game that relates to real life being inherently good, you're literally a moronic child feeding words into nonexistent spaces to make an argument that's more comfortably for you to onions out over and shut down. The point is that exploration is a concept based in real life, just like combat, just like fall damage, just like stamina, etc. and TR has it.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Come on buddy, I could figure out TR2 when I was 5. You aren't dumber than a 5 year old are you?
>except for the delayed input while doing a running jump in TR1
never understood this point because consistency and control overrides delay; see the human body.
because the human body has a limited range of movement, even though a large part of are actions are delayed, because it's consistent, our brains can subconsciously internalize that delay so that it feels mostly natural, on top of the fact that despite our range of movement being limited to a degree, we still have a large control over individual aspects of our body, like our fingers.
yes, I'm not saying it's perfectly ideal, people need to be babied and need every convenience ever in videogames, what TR2 and beyond do is all fine and well, my point is that the complaint about it is overblown in TR1 and I only failed running jump a couple time in St.Francis Folly because I think I was off a tile or so
>Shit controls are the only thing making that level hard
calling them shit doesn't make them shit, I could objectively prove how they're not, but I'm not sure I want to waste my time with you, regardless I'll prove how your entire argument is fundamentally moronic.
>games unique mechanics and considerations that they explicitly designed levels and progression around are the ONLY thing that makes them hard.
Yes, videogames are created, fabricated, and designed experiences. "Artificial Difficulty" is a meaningless terms, every game that isn't EXACTLY like reality is always hard because of deliberate design choices, reality and it's features and laws are the only inherent and unalterable thing. Anything else is the choice of a human being to create something that will never match up to realities depth, but can offer a unique feeling. Even games that try to imitate reality still offer a unique experience from it.
All games are hard or difficult or challenging because they are designed as such, what matters isn't whether somebody could subjectively find a problem with that, there's no reason their subjective opinion is necessarily meaningful, especially if they use objectively wrong terms like "artificial difficulty" to imply their opinion is more substantial than it is. All that matter in a videogame is whether those challenges are fair and can be reasonably dealt with and responded to. (arguably not even necessarily since games like Pathologic and STALKER exist)
And in Tomb Raiders case, it arguably has the best controls for making a game reasonably respondent. It's controls are consistent and deliberate, emphasized even more by its grid based design. You can shimmy your character exactly to the edge of a ledge, to the side of it, etc. You can control exactly which directly Lara will face, due to tank controls giving greater horizontal control You can make consistent distanced jumps and can reach out your hands to grab onto a ledge and always make it
> It's more linear! > It's more complex! > B-but actually m-meaningless b-bloat!
are you actually fricking moronic?
bigger and more open ≠ more complex
breadth is not depth.
or else dark souls 2 is more complex than DS1 for having bigger and more open areas both on a macro and micro level
sens fortress is one of the smallest levels in DS1, since it's small it can't be more complex and deeper than anor Londo
something can be wide as an ocean and shallow as a puddle. That is what LAU trilogy is. It gives a surface level impression of being bigger and more open than it is by virtue of being a console an entire generation ahead that can depict more realistic and detailed graphics. But videogames are meant to be played, not watched. And despite being a generation ahead, it's simple, more linear, less complex to actually scale and traverse, and has zero exploration.
I really can't with these morons, I'm so tir3d of having to argue with people that lack the self awareness to consider their own argument critically before they type and think they're smarter than they actually are. Please just frick off if you've never played the games. Anybody whos played those two levels and isn't a genuine bot can understand what I mean by it being harder and deeper whilst being smaller and more contained.
Whenever you feel like a loser remember that OP has such a hate boner for these games that he doesn't want to admit that he likes ANYTHING about them. Not even the fact that Legend has one of the best looking portrayal of Lara in the franchise.
Not even OP and you are such a fricking loser man lmao, the fact that you think the most superficial aspect about the games should be given any consideration, or that it should be treated objectively says so much about your intelligence that, I'm even more confident in the fact that LAU is garbage. Angel of Darkness was a better Lara design for what they were trying to go for in LAU trilogy, otherwise Lara has never looked like Lara since that game.
THIS is Lara. Not that GARBAGE. LAU Lara has zero charm.
Yeah, and if I was OP my opening post would have more than 2 lines, way to go again and show moronic you are, have a nice day because you genuinely act like an insecure child that needs to attack implied character and expression rather than engage with any of the actual substantive arguments being made because doing so would force you to contend with the fact that your beliefs and opinions may not be objective and that you lack the ability to articulate sufficiently why LAU is good beyond "I PLAYED IT WHEN I WAS YOUNGER AND HAVE FOND MEMORIES FOR HOW HOT LARA WAS EHEGHEHUUURDURRR"
Tomb Raider ost might not be what you listen to outside of playing the game like some others, but man, the feeling of this soundtrack playing as you step into and see the vastness of the colosseum is unmatched and was borderline perfect. It just hits different to every other bombastic grand ost...
Genuinely think St.Francis Folly is underrated, PLUS it filtered tons of people. It's arguably the one that uses verticality best, being a long tower, but the genius twist is that you start at the top and it turns the concept of platformers on its head, by emphasizing climbing and hanging down safely because of fall damage actually being meaningful.
Anniversary could literally never match because of how easy movement is and how you automatically ledge hang.
nobody cares really, if you're stupid and shallow enough to dislike the games for that reason, then it doesn't matter in the first place since you're such a genuine child that you would have gotten filtered by the controls and navigation already that you would just drop the game for not holding your hand and soothing you "yes the people calling LAU bad are meanies and you shouldn't care about them, yes child, yes, only your opinion matters as valid, if people don't capitulate to it and passionately argue against it, then they're the bad guys, you should be comfortable painting them in such a way, you don't need to consider them legitimately."
Plus, Tomb Raider has been dead for more than 20 years. Reboot games or LAU games are the only games that can exist in modern times, so trying to appeal to literal babbys like you is meaningless since it objectively won't result in more Core type games or an evolution of that formula. All that's left for the road ahead is bastardization, and if that's the case, I'll let out my frustration in a meaningless anonymous board as much as I want, before going to play the classics.
ironically I think AOD sold more or about than atleast one of the LAU trilogy, but I'm really not sure.
regardless, AOD fans are even more delusional than LAU fans, AOD fans are actually delusional enough to belive that AOD could have been GOOD LMAO, when there are unfinished games that are infinitely better, and at the very least somewhat coherent compared to LAU, like DS1. It's not just that AOD was bad because it was unfinished, it was just a fundamental mess of a game, AOD being finished would have changed "I'm feeling stronger" LOL.
I also wish that AOD had any hope of actually being good if it was "finished" so that LAU trilogy wouldn't exist but, yeah, Tomb Raiders downfall was inevitable with Eidos and everything. AOD simply could not have been a good game with its circumstances methinks.
every videogame has the "bones of a good game" before its finalized or made, we don't even know what it would look like as a good game, we can only go off based the results to conclude that no, it actually couldn't have been a good game because there are unfinished games that are still good. It's just that because people are imagining the alternate reality that it could have been literally anything else, because a blank canvas can have anything projected onto it vs an almost finished one.
The reality is that AOD wouldn't be meaningfully different than the AOD we got if it was finished, like I said, the "I feel stronger now" mechanic still exists, something that should literally should not exist completely and has nothing to do with "being unfinished" its just a straight up mechanic of the game that's bad.
what do you mean? I consider it forced soul because it's entire premise is basically "remember Lara, she lives in all of us and her adventures yadda yadda" it's really nice and charming in theory to sort of pay tribute to all her pasts adventures that we haven't seen in gameplay form. But hence forced soul, it's trying to be soulful but it's forced because Core didn't actually want to make TR and wanted to end it with her death in Last Revelation, and Chronicles lacks polish and cohesiveness due to being made while split between a team making AOD.
Chronicles suffered just as much from the split team thing as AOD, but they really tried, and personally think it turned out better for the most part than AOD.
Re-read your first paragraph: >it's forced soul because...it just is okay?
The circumstances surrounding the production are irrelevant when evaluating a game. Chronicles is buggier than the original four, but it has a charming conceit, good difficulty curve, and great music. It's unironically the best send off for OG Lara.
>Re-read your first paragraph: >it's forced soul because...it just is okay?
The circumstances surrounding the production are irrelevant when evaluating a game
huh? lmao do you seriously think this is an honest characterization...lmao regardless, besides the fact you didn't address anything I said and made up an argument for me. Isn't literally the most common definition of "soul" on Ganker "devs being passionate and unobstructed by corpos lmaolmao" not even saying it's necessarily a bad game, just that it was obviously forced
Common where are the Chronicles haters everybody? If you really want anybody to get mad at it should be them...but Chronicles unironically has probably left such a small impression that even games like AOD gets more attention and haters/fans lmao
espect and rights to moscitos and idiots. They are living beings like we else are. If you treat idiots or moscitos unfair or disrespectful you are an outcast. They may drive you crazy, but compere their little evil to your unhuman cruelness, you got the fact that moscitos and idiots are as respectable and they got human rights as any else. If there are become overpopulation as a problrm, you got a better way than kill whole populayions in extinct. I would been a better kind of living as a cute little dog. A pink puppy. You are best as a rattlesnake. I guess, i dont know for sure.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>They may drive you crazy, but compere their little evil to your unhuman cruelness
mosquitoes go after my blood, try to take my goddamn property, they get shot, simple as, if there's no way to get them off my property with out a shotgun to the face, then it is what it is, simple as
PS1 emulation, duckstation, don't listen to anybody telling you anything else unless they include a way to play with save crystals, the lack of save crystals really de emphasizes the feeling of tension and isolation, just destroys immersion, navigation, and challenge, because it makes tomb raider more of a game than an experience. Something that is fundamental to the classic Tomb Raiders that is sorely missed in all future titles is this unique and permeating sense of adventure that "IM exploring these tombs, IM making these tough and daring jumps to get deeper into these tombs, IM unlocking this switch to open up these tombs, IM solving these puzzles to see more of these tombs"
The games are just incredibly Raw, it feels very "real" not just because of ambience or whatever, but also because of the unique way Lara's controls give you so much specific and precise control of how far you can move her, how to move her, the precise direction to move her etc. I'm not guaranteeing you will like it, infact you might just enjoy it fine with quicksaves, I'm just saying, you won't understand what makes it so special and impressive to people like me (doubly so because I'm a zoomer and think all old-school 3D games are trash)
If I could describe what Tomb Raider feels like, it feels like what I'd imagine climbing a mountain is like, except less painful and difficult because it's a videogame and rock climbing hurts my palms and fingers, but it gets close in essence methinks
PS1 emulation, duckstation, don't listen to anybody telling you anything else unless they include a way to play with save crystals, the lack of save crystals really de emphasizes the feeling of tension and isolation, just destroys immersion, navigation, and challenge, because it makes tomb raider more of a game than an experience. Something that is fundamental to the classic Tomb Raiders that is sorely missed in all future titles is this unique and permeating sense of adventure that "IM exploring these tombs, IM making these tough and daring jumps to get deeper into these tombs, IM unlocking this switch to open up these tombs, IM solving these puzzles to see more of these tombs"
The games are just incredibly Raw, it feels very "real" not just because of ambience or whatever, but also because of the unique way Lara's controls give you so much specific and precise control of how far you can move her, how to move her, the precise direction to move her etc. I'm not guaranteeing you will like it, infact you might just enjoy it fine with quicksaves, I'm just saying, you won't understand what makes it so special and impressive to people like me (doubly so because I'm a zoomer and think all old-school 3D games are trash)
If I could describe what Tomb Raider feels like, it feels like what I'd imagine climbing a mountain is like, except less painful and difficult because it's a videogame and rock climbing hurts my palms and fingers, but it gets close in essence methinks
https://github.com/LostArtefacts/Tomb1Main
This one is the definitive version to play.
I've been wanting to replay TR for ages, so I bought them all on sale for a couple dollars yesterday and steam had this thing on the store page saying "you sure you want this? You haven't played another other games like it"."
Shut the frick up steam there aren't games like tomb raider, of course I don't have any in my library. Stupid fricking algorithm shit.
>Shut the frick up steam there aren't games like tomb raider, of course I don't have any in my library
honestly this is the biggest reason I hate LAU fans so much.
game series' like metroid haven't actually been like Super Metroid in AGES. But it doesn't actually hit that hard since I still have games like Hollow Knight that are bigger, better, while maintaining and adding onto the essence of Super Metroid with things like it's map system, fast travel system, and shortcuts.
But with games like classic Tomb Raider? There's literally NOTHING like it. That's part of the reason I was so wowed by it despite being a zoomer, because I had never seen or played levels and platforming like it before. The closest thing to its level design I've played is Dark Souls 1, but it lacks the interactability of every platform that lends to a feeling of "scaling a huge mountain" that TR has.
If somebody would just fricking make an indie Tomb raider inspired game already, I'd frick off from venting my frustrations eternally at LAUtards for killing Tomb Raider for good.
I get that it seems like an outrage in hindsight, but you need to understand lil bro, we were used to it. Lara had been getting a new game every year for like 5 years, and then had gameboy games for a couple and angel of darkness after. The film made it an even bigger cultural meme.
We were just used to tomb raider. I stopped playing at some point, don't remember when. Not because they had got bad but because I just took it for granted. I think we all kind of figured that tomb raider would just go on forever, that the devs wouldn't burn out or use up all their good ideas or that the company wouldn't start demanding different things of the games. But that's how things happen. A game company can't keep up with that kind of schedule forever. It burns out or compromises and turns in to something else, or new staff get brought in while the old ones move on and you get the halo situation.
Nothing lasts forever. Remember dusty modern warfare brown person shooters? They seemed like they would never end. Even Mario has format shifts.
The real crime of it all from my perspective is the way that people pretend the old games weren't amazing because they are trying to sell you new ones. It happens with everything in gaming, sure. But it stings with Lara, hearing people who never played her games talk about how she was some blow up doll in shitty game that sold on the strength of polygonal boobies and not a driven sociopath in a game series that sold on the strength of amazing levels and gameplay.
>The real crime of it all from my perspective is the way that people pretend the old games weren't amazing because they are trying to sell you new ones. It happens with everything in gaming, sure. But it stings with Lara, hearing people who never played her games talk about how she was some blow up doll in shitty game that sold on the strength of polygonal boobies
yup, this one pisses me off the most, especially because I'm a zoomer so from my perspective Lara looks more like a cartoon character with exaggerated proportions and an exaggerated personality, rather than a real person to lust over, beyond the fact that I don't typically play games for such shallow reasons.
I don't wanna be onions, but this shit almost legit feels kinda sexist to me (to be fair advertising hardcore played into Lara being a sex icon so I can't get too mad, they brought it upon themselves) because it's reducing her solely to her looks, as if her games can't possibly be good for any reason other than how much she appeals to the average male.
The games are just so much more than everything I was told about them, and it just saddens me to feel like they're so underappreciated. They're simply too unique to NOT filter too many people... *sigh* just wish some indie dude could just make a game "inspired by Tomb Raider" instead of another metroidvania and rougelite again.
explain yourself without using cheap words like "clunky" actually be indepth and express it with an understanding that implies you've actually played the games for longer than 5 hours, and If you're successful...I'll give you a cookie and femboy nudes
Obsessed
LAU Black folk get the rope
The only Black person here is you, nureboot gay with your moronic falseflag attempts to equalise nureboot and lau.
Core games are better, cope
It's funny how he thinks we're the same person because his view of the world is so narrow he can't imagine more than one person thinking poorly about LAU genuinely schizophrenic tiers of delusional when he can just look at the IP count and how many words were typed LMAO LAUtards really are sub 80iq huh?
>The only Black person here is you, LAU gay with your moronic falseflag attempts to equalise LAU and the classics.
Can't spell Laura Croft without LAU. ;^)
>Can't spell Laura Croft without LAU. ;^)
lol. fake fan. it's actually "Lara" not "Laura" smfh yeah no wonder this franchise is dead
Not Interested
Legend is before anniversary
I only played Legend out of these three and I thought it was good. What's wrong with Anniversary and Underworld?
Even though this pic isn't actually accurately referencing any particular level it's true for the most part, and Legend arguably more accurately applies to the right side than anniversary or Underworld. Anniversary gets zero credit, it's linear, despite broadly imitating the visual design of TR1 levels (which results in a surface level "openness" but none of the actual mechanical openness that TR1 is exemplary at) makes it so that morons with sub 80iq can pretend it's not linear and brainless, while not adding anything substantially new, it just modernizes and removes the depth of levels.
Just look at Palace of Midas fire room level vs Anniversary.
Anniversary fire room level is so bloated and tries to do so much without any of it actually meaning anything. Ask anybody whos played both games and isn't moronic and they'll tell you TR1's level was much harder and more engaging.
>and more engaging.
Shit controls are the only thing making that level hard.
It's a series of extremely basic jumps, rendered hard by a character moving like an old lady with osteoporosis.
You might as well play QWOP or Getting Over It for a similar experience.
Anniversary is the usual idiot-proof modern game, but it doesn't make the old ones age any better.
the controls arent shit. they're fairly responsive except for the delayed input while doing a running jump in TR1, which is fixed in TR2 & beyond. the game is like Goldeneye or Doom where it's designed very well around it's constraints.
Everything is simplified and made slow BECAUSE the controls are shit, but i know you Coregays will never let this cope go, it's been more than 20 years now.
Same with the amazing "labyrinthian" level design, it's only hard to understand because the graphics are shit and everything looks like it's made out of the same 5 blocks.
>Everything is simplified
every action game is simple. but lara's slow and calculated movement separates gives a weighty feel behind it.
>amazing "labyrinthian" level design
nowhere near as bad as dungeon crawlers of ye old where the same sprite tile was used every five feet and its legit a maze that you cant understand unless you used an automap or a guide. TR's levels are simple enough to navigate without a map but designed to require some thought in exploration still. it's a good balance of old and new design within that time.
>the graphics are shit
i wont disagree. TR looks pretty sterile.
I'm not arguing that TR was bad at the time it came out.
Most 3d games aside from Mario 64 and a few others controlled like shit anyway, at the time.
I played them all when they came out and, at the time, loved them enough to become a fan.
What i'm saying is that they aged like shit, and that Coregays are retroactively glorifying a control system that was not particularly good, and was accepted mostly because the competition was doing even worse.
The idea that LAU's dumbed down (even though Underworld already offers more variety than Anniversary) general design is a byproduct of having a more fluid movement scheme, is just untrue, which is what i find annoying about Coregays' usual arguments.
>I'm not arguing that TR was bad at the time it came out.
arguing against the easy arguments where nobody will actually go indepth into the controls and what makes them work? The controls are objectively functional. That's all that matters, everything else is a learning curve, the game never wrestles control from the players, it's not like Soul Reaver where the range that your camera can move is horizontally limited and inconsistent, and where your jumps in that game are awkward and not precise.
I legit don't understand how so many morons get filtered so hard by these controls when they're some of THE most consistent and precise controls ever. M64 controls are genuine fricking dogshit, Mario always feels like a moronicly slippy fricking child who can't manage his own weight, it just that his controls have such a low skillfloor and allow you to do so much with so little input that the breadth makes up for the lack of depth.
Regardless, it's not like you can make any argument except reaffirming your own unjustified premise lmao. No amount of "THEYRE SHIT BECAUSE I DONT LIKE THEM AND THEY JUST HAVENT AGED WELL OKAY? THEY JUST HAVENT?" can mean anything in the face of "Every control and input is controlled and precise and in the players control, any improper input is the fault of the player."
>arguing against the easy arguments where nobody will actually go indepth into the controls and what makes them work?
I didn't argue with your post (
), because your paraphrasing of my post didn't represent what i said, so i didn't bother reading to the retort.
Anyway, i never said TR's controls aren't "functional", whatever that means to you (they preform their function, but that still leave quite a big spectrum between shit and great).
You also seem to imply that consistency is some kind of absolute golden standard that should take precedence over anything else, i don't think that's an objective value at all.
I can agree it's a positive quality, but alone, it doesn't inherently mean the game as great controls.
they're shit because their approach to being "precise" is to lower the ceiling slowing everything down to a crawl, and making everything into crude blocks and simple shapes, no shit they can manage to be "consistent" when you can only think in equally spaced blocks, inclines and ledges for the whole thing.
and they showed their limitation more and more when they kept adding more context sensitive actions in the following titles, like walking on a tight rope et al.
>Anyway, i never said TR's controls aren't "functional", whatever that means to you (they preform their function, but that still leave quite a big spectrum between shit and great)
you're so slow is unbelievable. The entire point if you were too slow to understand it, is that literally saying "controls are shit" objectively means nothing. The fact that somebody else can engage with those actions and perform consistent actions, means that controls work.
Oh God, you genuinely don't understand the point of emphasizing consistency FUUUUCK I have to explain 9th grade logic UGHHHH.
Consistency is simply a baseline. I argued about consistency because non of your arguments were particular or indepth, they were vague and surface level, existing solely on the base level.
In Math if: 1+1 = 2 and 1+1 = 3 then the entire system of math breaks down because now the number (1) doesn't equal something clear and defined.
Yes, consistency doesn't mean everything, for example: 77+33 =100 is as consistent as 66+44 = 100 but they are still wrong, because 77, 33, 66, and 44 have no basis for making up 100. There's no reason why these numbers should make up such a sum. But there is a reason 77+33 should = 110 because the basic principle of math is simply counting. You can count to 77 and 33 individually and add them to 110.
But none of this matters if 77 and 33 don't have consistent values in the first place. It becomes even more important when talking about subjective things, because the only way something subjective can be "wrong" is if it's inconsistent, because you would be going back on your own self proposed value.
My point of emphasizing TR controls and functional and consistent is to prove that your subjective opinion is just am opinion, it doesn't mean anything or communicate anything substantial about Tomb Raider, it's an interpretation that tries to feign as objective. TR controls aren't shit. You just don't like them. I'll elaborate briefly in a bit
ur putting way too much effort into your posts on a website that flushes them away after a few hours.
You're right man, but I REALLY like this game, you genuinely don't know how crazy it feels to finally "get it" when boomers say "you had to be there to see what it was like to see 3D for the first time hurr durrr" I didn't get it for a long time, I had no faith in 3D games of old, videogames were nice, but most of my top games were 2010 and above. Not only being surprised and impressed by TR, but being able to understand and appreciate its unique characteristics like tank controls (something I only saw as tedious until TR) is just a crazy feeling.
It's just such an amazing feeling to have your perspective changed by a game, and I haven't felt this way since Dark Souls, most games are just "good and fun" even my top 5 games are mostly made up of games I just find to be really fun and engaging, but to me, games like DS1 (arguably Sekiro to some degree but to a lesser one) and now Tomb Raider, aren't just "good" games to me, they're games that make me see videogames In a different light and appreciate game mechanics I never thought I could like.
To me that's special, and I will sing it's praise forever because of that. I truly connected to this game the way the developers clearly wanted me to. They communicated their message to me and the experience they wanted to express. And that is something that can't be matched by modern games with open words and everything, not in the same way atleast.
The original Tomb Raider is a masterpiece, I knew it then and I know it now. Watching a good speed runner really shows it's hidden depth - It's even possible to complete the game without killing any animals or humans (the abomination thing is neither).
>Watching a good speed runner really shows it's hidden depth
frick me do you really think so? Whenever I watch TR gameplay it always looks so boring and makes the game look way more simple than it actually feels to play in comparison. From a surface level perspective, the LAU and reboot games actually look WAAAAAAAY bigger, but from an actual playing and feeling perspective, classic TR has an unmatched sense of scale (I think it's due to TR1 platforming being way more indepth, meaning you're interacting with the actual platforms and levels way more, in much more elaborate and involved ways)
I suppose I meant depth in the way you traverse the levels in most efficient way. Yes there's a hidden complexity to the platforming which looks simple on the surface but if you've played the game you understand the skill and memory needed to pull it off. For example watch a good speed runner navigate down the tower in St Francis folly.
>For example watch a good speed runner navigate down the tower in St Francis folly
St.Francis Folly really is a genius early level, even for a beginner, it teaches you so much about how to he careful about traversing a level and makes fall damage actually threatening and meaningful in a way most games, and straight up most platformers simply don't. Don't know whether to consider it the best use of verticality in TR1 or not. It's crazy how to this day no modern games can give a similar feeling to climbing down STFF.
Aside from the fact that i never claimed objectivity, and that any person who isn't an autist would understand the colloquial nature of saying "X is shit" as a (subjective) personal opinion, given the context of being on Ganker and not trying to write a 4 hours Youtube Essay about the game, there is still nothing "objective" about the controls of TR being either good or bad, because the nature of what makes them fun or engaging is still purely subjective.
Consistency as a (positive) value is subjective.
Responsiveness as a (positive) value is subjective.
And so on.
If you want to have a discussion about objectivity, you can start and end by saying the controls do what they are programmed to do, and any value judgment beyond that enters subjective territory.
so yes, to me TR's CORE controls aged like shit, because they are needlessly slow, and restrictive, and limited the level design immensely.
I never claimed for them not to be functional in completing the game, nor for this to be a universal truth (some may like the slow pace or blocky, abstract level design).
LAU substitute them with something arguably worse, but that's another argument entirely.
>Aside from the fact that i never claimed objectivity, and that any person who isn't an autist would understand the colloquial nature of saying "X is shit" as a (subjective) personal opinion, given the context of being on Ganker and not trying to write a 4 hours Youtube Essay about the game, there is still nothing "objective" about the controls of TR being either good or bad, because the nature of what makes them fun or engaging is still purely subjective.
Consistency as a (positive) value is subjective.
Responsiveness as a (positive) value is subjective.
And so on
missed the entire point. engaged with nothing I said.
>so yes, to me TR's CORE controls aged like shit, because they are needlessly slow, and restrictive, and limited the level design immensely
misses my point, makes implicit objective claim again. Alright I think this convos over lmao, think I dumpstered you enough. You really have nothing to say and can't follow a conversation. The final thing I'll say is this.
When people say "I feel like you're being creepy" Even though this is fundamentally a subjective claim, they are still trying to label/describe X person. Nobody is just going to interpret this as "a perspective" anybody is going to interpret this as a fact of X's character, because by assigning a description to X person, that's what they are doing, they are implying that their perception of them, is a quality they genuinely possess.
Essentially, you can apply something, even if you're not consciously aware that you are, or intended to. Whenever you say "needlessly, slow and restrictive, and limited the design immensely" you are OBJECTIVELY implying that something was unnecessary, without understanding their goals or intent for designing it such a way.
It's like somebody saying
"I really like jenga" and somebody replying
"But it seems pointless and slow to stack up so many blocks if you're going to mess it up eventually"
"Yes, that's the point."
short continuation of
Objective means "judgement without feelings and personal opinion, referring only to fact"
Subjective means "judgement based solely on personal opinion and feelings, without consideration of fact"
These aren't the exact definitions you'll get when searching it up, but it doesn't matter because it's largely the essence of these words. If you are intelligent and have thought of the meaning of words for any number of time you'll notice something.
Objective refers to "object" and what are objects? External facts of reality. Hence "Objective" Object focused. It focuses on truth about the External world, about the objects of the world.
Subjective refers to "subject" if you understand the English language, subject usually refers to anything with "I, HE, She, They, IT, Jason, Emily" etc. It is essentially referring to a Person. Aka YOURSELF aka "Subjective" means subject focused. It focuses on truth about the Internal world, and how we interpret ourselves and everything in existence. We filter the world through our feelings.
"Controls are dogshit." is different that "I hate the controls" Because one contains an object, and one contains a subject. It is incredibly simple and fundamental, you cannot disagree with a Subjective opinion, because it fundamentally means nothing except what it says about a person. You CAN disagree with an objective claim because it means to define characteristics of an external object uninfluenced by human feelings.
Therefore, my argument isn't against your meaningless personal opinion, it's against you asserting your opinion as if it meaningfully reflects anything about the controls, as if your feelings say anything about the matter other than "I didn't like it" and the same principle applies regarding level design and visual clarity, things I demonstrably showed as false, but you insist on anyway, because your feelings while playing probably overemphasized the few times graphics got in the way.
This is overblown cope by morons that didn't understand the game or got filtered. Levels like St.Francis Folly, Palace Midas, and Cistern are genuinely huge complex and layered levels with dozens of different directions and paths. The reality is that anybody whos done any exploring in real life will realize that what makes navigating something like a forest hard, isn't just that it's huge and complex.
It's the fact that everything is unclear, despite the fact that objectively none of the trees will look exactly the same, they look similar enough and blend together enough to give that sense of "being lost" a core of navigation is not knowing where you are and where to go because you can go in multiple different ways because of how big something is, and a lack of consistent perspective on where everything is or "should be" you have to create a mental map in your head of where and what things are and distinguish between certain features of the area you're in consciously.
Tomb Raider embodies that same principle, the only early levels I'd argue are difficult to navigate due to Textures is Lost Valley Dino arena, and some of the underground parts of the colosseum. Everything else is overblown cope that can't be objectively substantiated, vs my actual reference to Areas (Palace of Midas, STFF, Cistern) which have clear bock textures. You are objectively wrong and simply got filtered. Tomb Raiders levels ARE complex, they are more than just visually confusing, and even if they were (which they arent for the most part) being visually confusing is a natural aspect of exploration.
You morons, i'm saying the only complicated thing about these levels is trying to understand where a hole or a grabable ledge is, due to the shit graphics.
I'm saying the exact opposite of what you're implying, in that they're otherwise not that difficult to navigate/figure out.
As an example the waterfall room where you fight shotgun guy in TR1 or the Sphynx room.
>But LAU is worse.
Yes LAU are a cinematic linear games for the most part (Underworld is a bit more open, but still in the same guided ballpark) i'm not denying that at all.
>You morons, i'm saying the only complicated thing about these levels is trying to understand where a hole or a grabable ledge is, due to the shit graphics.
I'm saying the exact opposite of what you're implying, in that they're otherwise not that difficult to navigate/figure out.
why do people do this? Instead of arguing against what somebody is saying they just reaffirm their point and imply it wasn't understood in the first place even though the argument they're responding to is running exactly counter to what they're saying, which it wouldn't be able to unless they understood the point?
Its like saying:
"I think horoscopes are real"
"They're not, that's confirmation bias, they don't fundamentally refer to any direct quality or characteristics of anyone born in those years"
"Yeah but they do to me, and I'm just saying, I think they're legit, how don't you understand that they real for people?"
"Okay but they're not tho...the fact that they don't apply to me is already proof against your thought, what it means is that it HAPPENED to match you, not that it actually meaningfully and reliably refers to anything about your character, or else it would have mapped on to me aswell, you're just using confirmation bias"
"Well they worked for me and for other people so I think they're legit."
"...."
This is what this conversation feels like. I've provided objective proof and examples suggesting that they're difficult to navigate due to more than just being visually confusing, by referring to actual levels in the game that not only have no visual problems in terms of clarity, but also are legitimately just huge and complex with multiple different directions. I even gave an example of real life navigation and how some degree of visual unclarity (made up word for convenience) is fundemental to exploration. You're literally just moronic im sorry.
>This is what this conversation feels like. I've provided objective proof and examples suggesting that they're difficult to navigate due to more than just being visually confusing,
I gave you a couple of examples where the complexity is mainly dictated by shit graphics.
Even in your own screenshot half the level is covered in shadow because os shit draw distance, which is another large part of what makes it so hard to have a "mental map" of the place.
For the time they were impressive levels of course.
>in shadow because os shit draw distance, which is another large part of what makes it so hard to have a "mental map" of the place.
I can't tell if you're actually moronic or not? I fricking KNEW my point about referencing real life navigation was on point. I'll get to this in a bit.
>I gave you a couple of examples where the complexity is mainly dictated by shit graphics
first of all...where? lmao? you haven't actually referenced any recognizable levels or moments where graphical problems get in the way of clarity, while I referenced multiple early levels where they are extremely visually clear
second of all, you haven't even proven against my argument about how "poor" visual clarity is even necessarily bad or a flaw.
Now to return to the first greentext. The reason why your statement is moronic is because navigation in natural life Is made difficult and engaging by the fact that we have limited eyesight, and lacked useful maps before Google maps etc. Which meant we had to go out on our own and contend with reality, figuring out and understanding how a particular area is laid out to navigate it correctly.
This is what is called exploration. Being dropped into an unknown place, developing an understanding of it, and making a mental map to navigate it. People had to navigate in the night, and so they created fire and torches, people had to see farther, and so they created binoculars, people had to navigate in a foggy sea, and so they created lighthouses and compasses. Reality, the limitations of our body and how far we can see and reach is what makes exploration meaningful and CHALLENGING in the first place, having to overcome natural obstacles that arent clear and obvious, is the essence of life and struggle.
And the reason why Tomb Raider hasn't aged poorly is cuz TO THIS DAY videogames still try to replicate that feeling of vast and complex adventure, and fail at it, where Tomb Raider has succeeded despite grid based blocky textures and all
>first of all...where? lmao? you haven't actually referenced any recognizable levels or moments where graphical problems get in the way of clarity,
I mentioned the waterfall room with the shotgun guy and the sphynx room.
Two that came to mind, i haven't played the game in a few years, i'm sure i could name more if i played them again.
>second of all, you haven't even proven against my argument about how "poor" visual clarity is even necessarily bad or a flaw.
This is about "objectivity" again? whether it's good or bad is up to you, i'm saying that's a large part of what makes these levels hard to parse.
>Now to return to the first greentext. The reason why your statement is moronic is because navigation in natural life Is made difficult and engaging by the fact that we have limited eyesight, and lacked useful maps before Google maps etc. Which meant we had to go out on our own and contend with reality, figuring out and understanding how a particular area is laid out to navigate it correctly.
How is something relating to real life inherently good? I don't give a shit about your interpretation of real life exploration.
I mean if you like it that's good for you, but i don't see how that's inherently a good thing.
Especially since the game fails so badly in capturing any other nuance about real life anyway.
Their rendition of Venice for example and their schizophrenic desire to set the game in urban modern areas, while maintaining their level design philosophy (arguably not an issue in 1 and 4, which are all tombs).
>I mentioned the waterfall room with the shotgun guy and the sphynx room
uh sure...I guess I missed that, again I'll say what I said initially, how frequent this is is overblown, how problematic this is, isn't even agreeable, I already gave all the examples about natural exploration you still havent argued against.
>How is something relating to real life inherently good? I don't give a shit about your interpretation of real life exploration
Yes, you are a baby, I understand that you are legitimately stupid wtf???? The entire point is that the basis of the entire concept of exploration comes from real life, when anybody talks about good exploration in videogames they're talking about whether it imitates the concept in real life, not whether it personally appeals to Ganker chatter you don't understand exploration simple. I don't care, I just care that you think your opinion would mean anything in any context or analysis regarding Tomb Raider, you barely understand the games.
Depending on how much a child you are, you'll keep repeating the arguments out of spite that I Invalidated you opinions and claimed they're irrelevant. Regardless, videogames cannot imitate real life perfectly, they never will, so criticizing it for imitating real life doesn't mean anything because it's not. It's bad because it was implemented poorly. TR exploration isn't good because its like real life, it's good because it's got some core videogamey mechanics that replicate feelings of real life like scaling a huge terrain and learning how to use your body effectively. There's a difference
Nobody said anything about making a game that relates to real life being inherently good, you're literally a moronic child feeding words into nonexistent spaces to make an argument that's more comfortably for you to onions out over and shut down. The point is that exploration is a concept based in real life, just like combat, just like fall damage, just like stamina, etc. and TR has it.
Come on buddy, I could figure out TR2 when I was 5. You aren't dumber than a 5 year old are you?
>except for the delayed input while doing a running jump in TR1
never understood this point because consistency and control overrides delay; see the human body.
because the human body has a limited range of movement, even though a large part of are actions are delayed, because it's consistent, our brains can subconsciously internalize that delay so that it feels mostly natural, on top of the fact that despite our range of movement being limited to a degree, we still have a large control over individual aspects of our body, like our fingers.
yes, I'm not saying it's perfectly ideal, people need to be babied and need every convenience ever in videogames, what TR2 and beyond do is all fine and well, my point is that the complaint about it is overblown in TR1 and I only failed running jump a couple time in St.Francis Folly because I think I was off a tile or so
>Shit controls are the only thing making that level hard
calling them shit doesn't make them shit, I could objectively prove how they're not, but I'm not sure I want to waste my time with you, regardless I'll prove how your entire argument is fundamentally moronic.
>games unique mechanics and considerations that they explicitly designed levels and progression around are the ONLY thing that makes them hard.
Yes, videogames are created, fabricated, and designed experiences. "Artificial Difficulty" is a meaningless terms, every game that isn't EXACTLY like reality is always hard because of deliberate design choices, reality and it's features and laws are the only inherent and unalterable thing. Anything else is the choice of a human being to create something that will never match up to realities depth, but can offer a unique feeling. Even games that try to imitate reality still offer a unique experience from it.
All games are hard or difficult or challenging because they are designed as such, what matters isn't whether somebody could subjectively find a problem with that, there's no reason their subjective opinion is necessarily meaningful, especially if they use objectively wrong terms like "artificial difficulty" to imply their opinion is more substantial than it is. All that matter in a videogame is whether those challenges are fair and can be reasonably dealt with and responded to. (arguably not even necessarily since games like Pathologic and STALKER exist)
And in Tomb Raiders case, it arguably has the best controls for making a game reasonably respondent. It's controls are consistent and deliberate, emphasized even more by its grid based design. You can shimmy your character exactly to the edge of a ledge, to the side of it, etc. You can control exactly which directly Lara will face, due to tank controls giving greater horizontal control You can make consistent distanced jumps and can reach out your hands to grab onto a ledge and always make it
> It's more linear!
> It's more complex!
> B-but actually m-meaningless b-bloat!
You went full schizoid embolism. Never go full schizoid embolism.
> It's more linear!
> It's more complex!
> B-but actually m-meaningless b-bloat!
are you actually fricking moronic?
bigger and more open ≠ more complex
breadth is not depth.
or else dark souls 2 is more complex than DS1 for having bigger and more open areas both on a macro and micro level
sens fortress is one of the smallest levels in DS1, since it's small it can't be more complex and deeper than anor Londo
something can be wide as an ocean and shallow as a puddle. That is what LAU trilogy is. It gives a surface level impression of being bigger and more open than it is by virtue of being a console an entire generation ahead that can depict more realistic and detailed graphics. But videogames are meant to be played, not watched. And despite being a generation ahead, it's simple, more linear, less complex to actually scale and traverse, and has zero exploration.
I really can't with these morons, I'm so tir3d of having to argue with people that lack the self awareness to consider their own argument critically before they type and think they're smarter than they actually are. Please just frick off if you've never played the games. Anybody whos played those two levels and isn't a genuine bot can understand what I mean by it being harder and deeper whilst being smaller and more contained.
Whenever you feel like a loser remember that OP has such a hate boner for these games that he doesn't want to admit that he likes ANYTHING about them. Not even the fact that Legend has one of the best looking portrayal of Lara in the franchise.
Not even OP and you are such a fricking loser man lmao, the fact that you think the most superficial aspect about the games should be given any consideration, or that it should be treated objectively says so much about your intelligence that, I'm even more confident in the fact that LAU is garbage. Angel of Darkness was a better Lara design for what they were trying to go for in LAU trilogy, otherwise Lara has never looked like Lara since that game.
THIS is Lara. Not that GARBAGE. LAU Lara has zero charm.
>Not even OP
You're the only sperglord who writes this way for miles, now kick rocks and quit shitting up the board and future TR threads.
Yeah, and if I was OP my opening post would have more than 2 lines, way to go again and show moronic you are, have a nice day because you genuinely act like an insecure child that needs to attack implied character and expression rather than engage with any of the actual substantive arguments being made because doing so would force you to contend with the fact that your beliefs and opinions may not be objective and that you lack the ability to articulate sufficiently why LAU is good beyond "I PLAYED IT WHEN I WAS YOUNGER AND HAVE FOND MEMORIES FOR HOW HOT LARA WAS EHEGHEHUUURDURRR"
Get blasted. You lose.
Jesus Christ. They are just games.
TR forums agree with me
Tomb Raider ost might not be what you listen to outside of playing the game like some others, but man, the feeling of this soundtrack playing as you step into and see the vastness of the colosseum is unmatched and was borderline perfect. It just hits different to every other bombastic grand ost...
played legend and anniversary.
Is underworld really THAT bad?
Its more rushed than anything.
What is the best level in the entire series and why is it St. Francis's Folly?
Genuinely think St.Francis Folly is underrated, PLUS it filtered tons of people. It's arguably the one that uses verticality best, being a long tower, but the genius twist is that you start at the top and it turns the concept of platformers on its head, by emphasizing climbing and hanging down safely because of fall damage actually being meaningful.
Anniversary could literally never match because of how easy movement is and how you automatically ledge hang.
The only effect you have from constantly making these threads is making people dislike the PSX games by associating them with your shitty posts.
nobody cares really, if you're stupid and shallow enough to dislike the games for that reason, then it doesn't matter in the first place since you're such a genuine child that you would have gotten filtered by the controls and navigation already that you would just drop the game for not holding your hand and soothing you "yes the people calling LAU bad are meanies and you shouldn't care about them, yes child, yes, only your opinion matters as valid, if people don't capitulate to it and passionately argue against it, then they're the bad guys, you should be comfortable painting them in such a way, you don't need to consider them legitimately."
Plus, Tomb Raider has been dead for more than 20 years. Reboot games or LAU games are the only games that can exist in modern times, so trying to appeal to literal babbys like you is meaningless since it objectively won't result in more Core type games or an evolution of that formula. All that's left for the road ahead is bastardization, and if that's the case, I'll let out my frustration in a meaningless anonymous board as much as I want, before going to play the classics.
TR fans hate them
The most obvious samegayging I've seen
frick off
Dilate
demented.
AOD is more beloved
ironically I think AOD sold more or about than atleast one of the LAU trilogy, but I'm really not sure.
regardless, AOD fans are even more delusional than LAU fans, AOD fans are actually delusional enough to belive that AOD could have been GOOD LMAO, when there are unfinished games that are infinitely better, and at the very least somewhat coherent compared to LAU, like DS1. It's not just that AOD was bad because it was unfinished, it was just a fundamental mess of a game, AOD being finished would have changed "I'm feeling stronger" LOL.
I also wish that AOD had any hope of actually being good if it was "finished" so that LAU trilogy wouldn't exist but, yeah, Tomb Raiders downfall was inevitable with Eidos and everything. AOD simply could not have been a good game with its circumstances methinks.
(arguably top 3 Lara tho)
Angel of Darkness has the bones of a good game. But is mired by incompetence on both Eidos's and Core Designs's ends.
>Angel of Darkness has the bones of a good game
every videogame has the "bones of a good game" before its finalized or made, we don't even know what it would look like as a good game, we can only go off based the results to conclude that no, it actually couldn't have been a good game because there are unfinished games that are still good. It's just that because people are imagining the alternate reality that it could have been literally anything else, because a blank canvas can have anything projected onto it vs an almost finished one.
The reality is that AOD wouldn't be meaningfully different than the AOD we got if it was finished, like I said, the "I feel stronger now" mechanic still exists, something that should literally should not exist completely and has nothing to do with "being unfinished" its just a straight up mechanic of the game that's bad.
refute it.
Duke Nukem: Time to Kill > Rugrats Search for Reptar > Star Wars Episode I > LAU Trilogy > Classic
proof?
>Angel of Darkness.
>AntiSoul.
You've been filtered:
>Chronicles
>Forced Soul
You didn't play it.
what do you mean? I consider it forced soul because it's entire premise is basically "remember Lara, she lives in all of us and her adventures yadda yadda" it's really nice and charming in theory to sort of pay tribute to all her pasts adventures that we haven't seen in gameplay form. But hence forced soul, it's trying to be soulful but it's forced because Core didn't actually want to make TR and wanted to end it with her death in Last Revelation, and Chronicles lacks polish and cohesiveness due to being made while split between a team making AOD.
Chronicles suffered just as much from the split team thing as AOD, but they really tried, and personally think it turned out better for the most part than AOD.
Re-read your first paragraph:
>it's forced soul because...it just is okay?
The circumstances surrounding the production are irrelevant when evaluating a game. Chronicles is buggier than the original four, but it has a charming conceit, good difficulty curve, and great music. It's unironically the best send off for OG Lara.
>Re-read your first paragraph:
>it's forced soul because...it just is okay?
The circumstances surrounding the production are irrelevant when evaluating a game
huh? lmao do you seriously think this is an honest characterization...lmao regardless, besides the fact you didn't address anything I said and made up an argument for me. Isn't literally the most common definition of "soul" on Ganker "devs being passionate and unobstructed by corpos lmaolmao" not even saying it's necessarily a bad game, just that it was obviously forced
Common where are the Chronicles haters everybody? If you really want anybody to get mad at it should be them...but Chronicles unironically has probably left such a small impression that even games like AOD gets more attention and haters/fans lmao
espect and rights to moscitos and idiots. They are living beings like we else are. If you treat idiots or moscitos unfair or disrespectful you are an outcast. They may drive you crazy, but compere their little evil to your unhuman cruelness, you got the fact that moscitos and idiots are as respectable and they got human rights as any else. If there are become overpopulation as a problrm, you got a better way than kill whole populayions in extinct. I would been a better kind of living as a cute little dog. A pink puppy. You are best as a rattlesnake. I guess, i dont know for sure.
>They may drive you crazy, but compere their little evil to your unhuman cruelness
mosquitoes go after my blood, try to take my goddamn property, they get shot, simple as, if there's no way to get them off my property with out a shotgun to the face, then it is what it is, simple as
God damn I just want Lara to stick one of her pistols up my ass
looks like she raided her last tomb. but ill get to raid her womb!
Textures look off, is that even any tomb raider area? looks more like doom or sumn
Shadow warrior
Tomb Raider btfo Quake and Duke
original version
what version of shadow warrior was that in?
the demo/beta versions apparently.
What is the best way to play classic Tomb Raider (first four games)?
Steam? Emulating (then what)? PS 1/2 controller?
GoG versions with keyboard.
PC GOG with fan patches.
what patches would you need?
you can use a source port or Tomb1main
>https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=932208684
Is this it?
PS1 emulation, duckstation, don't listen to anybody telling you anything else unless they include a way to play with save crystals, the lack of save crystals really de emphasizes the feeling of tension and isolation, just destroys immersion, navigation, and challenge, because it makes tomb raider more of a game than an experience. Something that is fundamental to the classic Tomb Raiders that is sorely missed in all future titles is this unique and permeating sense of adventure that "IM exploring these tombs, IM making these tough and daring jumps to get deeper into these tombs, IM unlocking this switch to open up these tombs, IM solving these puzzles to see more of these tombs"
The games are just incredibly Raw, it feels very "real" not just because of ambience or whatever, but also because of the unique way Lara's controls give you so much specific and precise control of how far you can move her, how to move her, the precise direction to move her etc. I'm not guaranteeing you will like it, infact you might just enjoy it fine with quicksaves, I'm just saying, you won't understand what makes it so special and impressive to people like me (doubly so because I'm a zoomer and think all old-school 3D games are trash)
If I could describe what Tomb Raider feels like, it feels like what I'd imagine climbing a mountain is like, except less painful and difficult because it's a videogame and rock climbing hurts my palms and fingers, but it gets close in essence methinks
https://github.com/LostArtefacts/Tomb1Main
This one is the definitive version to play.
Take the software mode pill
Why can't lau Black folk kill themselves already?
I've been wanting to replay TR for ages, so I bought them all on sale for a couple dollars yesterday and steam had this thing on the store page saying "you sure you want this? You haven't played another other games like it"."
Shut the frick up steam there aren't games like tomb raider, of course I don't have any in my library. Stupid fricking algorithm shit.
>Shut the frick up steam there aren't games like tomb raider, of course I don't have any in my library
honestly this is the biggest reason I hate LAU fans so much.
game series' like metroid haven't actually been like Super Metroid in AGES. But it doesn't actually hit that hard since I still have games like Hollow Knight that are bigger, better, while maintaining and adding onto the essence of Super Metroid with things like it's map system, fast travel system, and shortcuts.
But with games like classic Tomb Raider? There's literally NOTHING like it. That's part of the reason I was so wowed by it despite being a zoomer, because I had never seen or played levels and platforming like it before. The closest thing to its level design I've played is Dark Souls 1, but it lacks the interactability of every platform that lends to a feeling of "scaling a huge mountain" that TR has.
If somebody would just fricking make an indie Tomb raider inspired game already, I'd frick off from venting my frustrations eternally at LAUtards for killing Tomb Raider for good.
>it lacks the interactability of every platform that lends to a feeling of "scaling a huge mountain" that TR has.
I get that it seems like an outrage in hindsight, but you need to understand lil bro, we were used to it. Lara had been getting a new game every year for like 5 years, and then had gameboy games for a couple and angel of darkness after. The film made it an even bigger cultural meme.
We were just used to tomb raider. I stopped playing at some point, don't remember when. Not because they had got bad but because I just took it for granted. I think we all kind of figured that tomb raider would just go on forever, that the devs wouldn't burn out or use up all their good ideas or that the company wouldn't start demanding different things of the games. But that's how things happen. A game company can't keep up with that kind of schedule forever. It burns out or compromises and turns in to something else, or new staff get brought in while the old ones move on and you get the halo situation.
Nothing lasts forever. Remember dusty modern warfare brown person shooters? They seemed like they would never end. Even Mario has format shifts.
The real crime of it all from my perspective is the way that people pretend the old games weren't amazing because they are trying to sell you new ones. It happens with everything in gaming, sure. But it stings with Lara, hearing people who never played her games talk about how she was some blow up doll in shitty game that sold on the strength of polygonal boobies and not a driven sociopath in a game series that sold on the strength of amazing levels and gameplay.
>The real crime of it all from my perspective is the way that people pretend the old games weren't amazing because they are trying to sell you new ones. It happens with everything in gaming, sure. But it stings with Lara, hearing people who never played her games talk about how she was some blow up doll in shitty game that sold on the strength of polygonal boobies
yup, this one pisses me off the most, especially because I'm a zoomer so from my perspective Lara looks more like a cartoon character with exaggerated proportions and an exaggerated personality, rather than a real person to lust over, beyond the fact that I don't typically play games for such shallow reasons.
I don't wanna be onions, but this shit almost legit feels kinda sexist to me (to be fair advertising hardcore played into Lara being a sex icon so I can't get too mad, they brought it upon themselves) because it's reducing her solely to her looks, as if her games can't possibly be good for any reason other than how much she appeals to the average male.
The games are just so much more than everything I was told about them, and it just saddens me to feel like they're so underappreciated. They're simply too unique to NOT filter too many people... *sigh* just wish some indie dude could just make a game "inspired by Tomb Raider" instead of another metroidvania and rougelite again.
I've enjoyed playing all of the Tomb Raider games. Even Angel of Darkness. Lara is my all time favorite female video game hero.
I feel like if Natla had met Lara with a checkbook instead of a Hillbilly with a desert eagle in Peru her plan would have went off without a hitch.
I don't really think any of Lara's games are good.
You are welcome to your trash opinion, frogposter. I won't try to prove it wrong, now begone.
explain yourself without using cheap words like "clunky" actually be indepth and express it with an understanding that implies you've actually played the games for longer than 5 hours, and If you're successful...I'll give you a cookie and femboy nudes