A stealth series that operates and functions almost entirely like a game released in the late 80s for almost the entirety of its 3D lifespan, plus shooting random animals, and clicking around in screens to camouflage and heal is still primitive and generic among the stealth genre. Complexity doesn't make execution any better.
No it isn't generic, you don't even know what generic means, gameplay in Snaker Eater is far different than any stealth game I've played, the animal hunting and camo systems isn't generic at all, no other stealth series has it, it's different, not generic, generic is exactly what Tomb Raider, Conviction and Blacklist did.
Hide behind cover, shoot, run, repeat.
Yet, you haven't been able to tell me whether or not I was wrong... Did I not sum up the rest of your post correctly last time?
I posted a trailer of why you're wrong, but as you admitted yet again, you didn't wanna hear it, you claim I'm angry because one of my favorite franchises has just changed and is different from past games, well guess what, Shadow Warrior changed and is different from the original yet I love it.
It's different from the both original and different from modern shooters, better too.
Tomb Raider 2013 took away everything that was good and original of past games and changed it all up with every possible modern gameplay trope of today.
It's not different at all, it's Call of Duty syndrome, game copies what's popular, throws in a good story and fanboys/fangirls love it.
It doesn't matter if you think it's better or not when it is undeniably an Uncharted clone with no originality, it didn't do anything to set itself apart from other generic cover shooters.
LMFAO! The irony... It's different from its predecessors.
and exactly the same as what's popular.
Diversity is never going to exist with people like you around.
What's with this "story focused" view of yours? I don't even think you actually play games if you believe that any game that attempts a serious narrative is somehow story over all. BTW, those features sound really good for an action-adventure game, especially when executed as well as Tomb Raider.
There it is, you proved my last point again. Anybody who thinks QTEs, scripted events, set pieces and generic human enemies is good will never let diversity happen in this era.
It doesn't matter if they're well executed or not, they are horrible and cheap gameplay features that are killing diversity and originality.
I'm fine with games having story, but I want the gameplay to be just as important, I want them to be balanced out, Snake Eater accomplished that very well and so did Shadow Warrior, it had a surprisingly great story and the gameplay was slick, awesome and different.
Games like TR2013, Last of Us etc all let their gameplay down in favor of the story and fanboys/fangirls accept it cause they just want the story.
I want that to stop so more good and different games can be made, I want good games, not just good stories.
You have to make a valid list first before we could clash opinions.
I made those valid points on the last thread, you couldn't even counter point them then, you wanna try again then here they are.
- Tell me why Tomb Raider becoming a cover shooter is not copying Uncharted and not generic.
- Tell me how linear set pieces is different from Uncharted and not generic.
- Tell me how TR2013 is a game about surviving.
- Tell me how QTEs are improvements, are different and not generic.
- Tell me how scripted events are different and not generic.
- Tell me why countless cutscenes are different and are not generic.
- Tell me how regen health is different and not generic.
- Tell me how hand holding is not dumbing down.
- Tell me how generic human enemies is enemy variety and not generic.
- Tell me how removing swimming segments is not generic.
You see, this proves your delusion. Taking elements from other games is never a bad thing as long as it's executed well. The way you define quality is seriously bogus. Games like Bayonetta, Vanquish, and even Tomb Raider prove you wrong. They take elements from existing games and make them as good or better than the games they borrowed from. I'd take Tomb Raider over Uncharted any day because there's more depth to its gameplay than just moving, shooting, and climbing like in the Uncharted games.
Bayonetta and Vanquish took elements from other games and make them better yes and other games taking features from past games and improving them is a good thing, that we agree on, but Tomb Raider does absolutely nothing to improve on the originals or improve on what it's copying, it's a copy and paste of Uncharted and other generic tropes of modern gaming, it didn't do anything original or improve anything at all.
It's just another generic cover shooter with a story.
Why couldn't they have innovated? Those survival features from Snake Eater I also mentioned here and on the past thread would have made TR2013 a game that claims is about survival, far more complex and in depth.
Far more so than a shoot em up with regen health, also would have made the story have more impact.
I never thought I'd see the day when Naked Snake was more fragile than a young Lara Croft.
Also, I would just like to point out, that you should quit calling Tomb Raider a "Story Heavy Game" because it wasn't. The story was lame, and it was made ALL about Gameplay. Gameplay we've seen in the past from other games, but Gameplay non the less.
Whether you like the story or not doesn't matter, it is a story heavy game, the entire game is set on it's story with Lara Crofts character development and so on.
There is nothing to encourage you to continue playing other than the story, which is a story heavy game and not a good thing. Also doesn't give much hope for replay value.
