Why does everybody say that Tomb Raider had bad gameplay? IMO the control scheme was amazing, you get to go down ziplines with an axe, and a bunch of other things. I think it was better on gameplay than it was story.
Capcom can be bought.
- Thread starter xMobilemux
- Start date
Because people like to whine about how different it is from the older games... Tomb Raider's gameplay was amazing. Can't wait for the sequel.
I haven't finished it yet, but I think a sequel would be nice. And I didn't like the older games very much. I felt like there wasn't really any direction.
You know, after all this, you are actually the one who doesn't understand what good gameplay is, I've been trying to explain to you over and over again why Snake Eater is incredibly complex, but you just shrug it off because you think it's generic and hell you don't even know what generic gameplay is.
Also vs Splinter Cell? I love the first 4 Splinter Cell games, but Snake Eater has WAY more variety than Splinter Cell, but I'm not gonna waste time getting into why if you don't even read them.
That brings me to this.
vv
vv
Once again, you admit you don't read my posts, therefor, you don't even know what you're arguing with.
The gameplay in TR2013 is not different at all, it's exactly the same as Uncharted, it just copy and past what was popular, but yet again people don't notice because they just want the story, if you enjoy that crappy game so much just like you enjoy the crappy Conviction and Blacklist, then tell me how Tomb Raider 2013 isn't generic.
Tell me how a cover shooter with quick time events, set pieces, scripted events, generic human enemies is different from story focused games of today.
Oh wait we've been here before haven't we? On a past thread I listed all the things that were generic about TR2013 and you couldn't tell me why I'm wrong and you still can't.
Also you still don't know what story hound means?
You wanna know what I consider different and better in terms of gameplay in a reboot.
This:
The sword combat alone is a gameplay feature that no other shooter of today has and it is an improvement over the originals sword play.
An FPS where you have a big selection of fun to us guns, yet the sword still remains the best, not something you see in modern shooters.
That's what I consider different, not copy & pasting what's popular.
If you like it that's fine, but take a long hard look at TR2013s gameplay, the cover shooting, the scripted events, set pieces, linearity, regen health, QTEs etc, does that gameplay sound good or different to you?
Last edited:
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.
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?
LMFAO! The irony... It's different from its predecessors.
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.
You have to make a valid list first before we could clash opinions.
Well, I looked it up in the dictionary and all that came up was "stupid term."
Not really...
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.
I can't read this without ACTUALLY Laughing out loud. My wife is asking "Why are you laughing?" and I Just laugh more and tell her to read this...Dude, Turo...You're making our DAY (In a good way).
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
and exactly the same as what's popular.
Diversity is never going to exist with people like you around.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This Splinter Cell taste like Froot Loops. Mmm, good as f*ck. How's your Fruit Circles or Fruit Rings?
Damn, I love that game. What was it called? Gears of War? Yeah, that one! How's your Tomb Raider analysis going btw? I heard you were done but it got rejected due to a plagiarism lawsuit from a 3 year old.
So to you, reboot means being exactly the same as the original game? Because what I hear, Shadow Warrior had been an irrelevant franchise (if that), that finally made the 3D console jump and is still virtually the same thing as the original. Oh, and the game looks boring too.
And what's wrong with that? Did the game have bugs? Was it not fun? Did it not have excellent design and a combination of different gameplay elements?
Wait, you think Call of Duty has a good story? Hold up, you think Call of Duty is popular for its story?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! This proves everything! XD
So in Uncharted, Nathan Drake had a bow and arrow? He also attached rope to his arrows? Did Uncharted also have an upgrading system? Did it also take place in a fully explorable open world? Yeah, didn't think so. Just further proves you have no idea what you're talking about. Especially since you still insist on calling action adventure games that utilize different elements and design that make each other stand apart from one another, cover shooters.
What do you suggest an action adventure game have? Don't even answer, because I don't really care.
Saying something is valid doesn't make it valid. You're further reinforcing my original statement. Keep whining, it does you no favors. All you're doing is listing gameplay elements and not offering any insight as to why they are flawed other than saying that "it's generic because I say so."
I'm stopping you there. I said as good or better. If it's anything but worse, you have no argument.
Wow... You hate Tomb Raider because it's unoriginal and copies from other games, yet, you want Tomb Raider to be unoriginal and copy from Snake Eater? Dafuq? What the hell are you even arguing?
Anyway, I can't take you seriously. You believe that originality is everything when it means sh*t if not executed correctly. Hell, you're not even original so you might as well hate yourself.
Now what the hell are you talking about?
Gears of War & Uncharted, the popular games it copied and pasted.
Also both of those franchises are like the CoD of adventure games, all 3 of their games are exactly the same, save the story.
Hence Call of Duty syndrome.
A reboot to me means being fairly different from the original game while retaining key features to originals and being different to modern games.
Shadow Warrior did both.
Tomb Raider did neither, it's exactly the same as a modern cover shooter and is even suffering an identity crisis now.
Not if you've played the whole Uncharted series and you're sick and tired of generic gameplay, I expected better from a reboot of an iconic brand.
If I wanna play a generic cover shooter in an adventure setting that's what Uncharted is for, if I want Tomb Raider I'm s**t out of luck now.
I didn't say CoD had a good story, I said Call of Duty syndrome, in which a game(TR) copies what's popular(Uncharted & Gears), throws in a story and fanboys/fangirls with low to no standards love it because of the story.
That is going on all the time in modern gaming and diversity is never going to happen with it happening.
TR2013 isn't open world, they're set pieces you can fast travel back to, the bow & arrow, upgrading system and so on don't change the game or make it anymore original, the bow & arrow is just another weapon, Last of Us had it too, but that didn't make LoU any better or original.
I suggest an action adventure game that claims to be about survival actually have survival gameplay, hence the survival features of Snake Eater, you claim copying Snake Eater would be unoriginal, but that's not the case.
I shouldn't have to explain stuff like this to you, but I understand why.
TR2013 having a similar survival system to Snake Eater would make way more sense in a game like TR2013, and it would balance up the gameplay even if it does copy and paste Uncharted.
Let's take Vanquish for example, it copy and pasted Gears of Wars cover shooting mechanics, but mixed it all up with it's very own rocket sliding and slow mo gameplay features, resulting in good and unique gameplay.
Tomb Raider didn't do anything to mix it up, it's still just a generic cover shooter with nothing of it's own.
Actually this just further proves my point that you don't know what generic gameplay is.
Well executed generic gameplay is still generic gameplay and I've played A LOT of games with that kind of gameplay, so one of my all time favorite franchises throwing away all originality in favor of generic gameplay is sh*t.
Put yourself in that same position where you had a favorite franchise who threw away everything you loved about it in order to make itself play like something you've played dozens of times over and gotten sick of while having no improvements or originality.
I stopped taking you seriously a few posts back, now I'm just continuing this for the hell of it XD
What does health regen have to do with gameplay? If you didn't have health regen, then all that would happen is you would have to go and find health. In terms of gameplay, that maes absolutely no difference.
Secondly, why would you want gameplay to be different from every other game? If every game had different game mechanics, no one would be able to play because every time you play a different game, you have to adjust to this different kind of gameplay.
Then what the hell is the reason for making other games? Why should talented developers even bother making games if they're all gonna be the same?
That right there is another reason why diversity is non existent in modern gaming, because no one wants to try anything new, nobody wants change, they all just want the same.
They just want dumbed down, easy to play show and tells, same thing happened with DmC Devil May Cry.
Instead of getting better and trying to be it's own thing, TR2013 just went the Me Too direction, played it safe and people loved it.
Yet people have the nerve to bash Call of Duty for never changing, hypocrisy at it's finest.
Regen health has a lot to do with gameplay, especially in a game that is supposed to be about survival, regen health is a generic gameplay trope that all games are using when they don't wanna put any effort into making med kits or another way of getting your health back and it is in pretty much all cover shooters on the market, I also hate the fact that it's showing up in The Phantom Pain.
Snake Eater had the stamina system in which health slowly came back over time, but only did if you kept Snake feed and kept his strength up, plus you had to heal his wounds with limited medical supplies he had to find, if you didn't heal the wounds you would loose chunks of health and Snake wouldn't heal.
Not only did it effect health, but it effected performance, if stamina was low Snake couldn't perform as good since he was weak, like he couldn't steady his weapon and such.
It was very in depth and very complex and it was made a f**king decade ago.
Yet a multi million dollar AAA game like Tomb Raider 2013 that claims to be about survival is too damn lazy to have survival gameplay and resorts to being a generic cover shooter.
...This is getting annoying and tiring...Can we please get back on the topic of Capcom, and you can just create a whole new thread to bitch about your modern gaming woes...Please...This is an honest request...I won't lie, I would LOVE to participate in this, but it's so far off topic, that it's completely idiotic to do so...Make a new thread so this can be RELEVANT. For all our sake's...
I'm all for ending this and getting the thread back on track, but that also depends on the other guys causing this argument to continue, I'll stop talking about it if they do.
Instead of who we think should buy Capcom, who do you all think would actually benefit most from buying Capcom?
Instead of who we think should buy Capcom, who do you all think would actually benefit most from buying Capcom?
...Well...What do you mean by benefit. I mean...Capcom is one of the most iconic companies in Video game history. Any company is going to benefit from it INITIALLY, despite their less than great reputation as of late...The questions is what company would benefit Capcom's IP's the most.
I mean we have someone like Nintendo who doesn't seem to have a lot to offer on the WiiU, gaining Capcom's arsenal would make the WiiU a competitive system immediately, Nintendo would benefit greatly, far more than anyone else.
In terms of what companies get the IPs, Platinum are the only ones who can do Devil May Cry justice at this point, maybe Team Ninja could take a shot, but I'd rather it be Platinum.
Resident Evil will obviously benefit most if Bethesda buys Resident Evil and makes Tango Gameworks make a RE game.
Dino Crisis and Dead Rising are the only other franchises I care about, but I'm unsure where they could go, pretty much anyone who can make fun action games really.
In terms of what companies get the IPs, Platinum are the only ones who can do Devil May Cry justice at this point, maybe Team Ninja could take a shot, but I'd rather it be Platinum.
Resident Evil will obviously benefit most if Bethesda buys Resident Evil and makes Tango Gameworks make a RE game.
Dino Crisis and Dead Rising are the only other franchises I care about, but I'm unsure where they could go, pretty much anyone who can make fun action games really.
...Doesn't have a lot to offer on the WiiU? Nearly everyone who saw E3 this years believes that Nintendo stole the show. Hell, Smash Bros and the new Zelda ALONE are enough to make the WiiU a total powerhouse. Plus, you're so focused on games that AREN'T generic, Nintendo is the BEST bet that the games WON'T be. I'm not saying that it just HAS to be Nintendo that buys them out, I'm just saying that I think you underestimate Nintendo's power. Not to mention, as I've stated before, with Nintendo's "Stick to the Roots" mentality, we will (Probably) see a new surge in sequels to old side scrollers like Ghouls N' Ghosts, Final Fight, and Street Fighter.
How would Resident Evil benefit if BETHESDA took them over? One of the single most over rated companies in modern gaming lol.
I happen to like Bethesda Softworks thankyou very much lol and I would probably be disappointed if Nintendo picked up the IP for resident evil. Nintendos primary focus is family oriented multiplayer and I love Nintendo games, but why have them take torch when ZeniMax already has the creative genius who started it all working underneath them. If Bethesda purchases the license they probably would rely heavily on Tango Gameworks to reboot the series and just be a means of production.
Plus Nintendo just isn't a platform that I would like to see resident evil be expressed. I kinda like the dynamic that the console wars have right now. I would be very upset if Microsoft took over not because I don't think they would have the resources to make a good game but because I hate the xbox controller lol, and I know those fu**ers would make it an exclusive.
Plus Nintendo just isn't a platform that I would like to see resident evil be expressed. I kinda like the dynamic that the console wars have right now. I would be very upset if Microsoft took over not because I don't think they would have the resources to make a good game but because I hate the xbox controller lol, and I know those fu**ers would make it an exclusive.
Well, I think you took it a bit wrong when I said they were over rated. As a company they aren't. They make good games. But very SPECIFICALLY some of their games are very over rated. Kind of like how While Square Enix is a great company, FFVII is VERY over rated.
I don't think their focus is family oriented multiplayer. That's really only the case with Mario entries. Zelda, Metroid, Star Fox, and Kirby are all exceptions to that rule. I mean, Smash Bros SORT of falls into that category, but that's also a game where you get eight people together with drinks, snacks, and shout profanity at each other all night...So there is that lol.
@KennedyKiller
Because Bethesda has done racing, RPG, FPS, and are currently working with Capcom on their first official horror game, although the FO's had several scary aspects to them IMO.
To decide who I think would be best for Capcom between Nintendo, Konami, and Bethesda, I will judge them with this:
Graphics - Bethesda
Soundtrack - Konami
Gameplay - Hmm . . . This one is probably a tie between Nintendo and Bethesda
Storyline - Tied between Konami and Bethesda, but I think I lean more towards Bethesda
Resident Evil Series - Either Konami or Bethesda. I would be happy with either.
Devil May Cry - Nintendo
Marvel vs. Capcom - Nintendo
Asura's Wrath - Given that there is a sequel, probably Nintendo
Clocktower - Okay, I'm not exactly sure, but I think Capcom did Clocktower 3? If so, then Konami.
Dead Rising - Bethesda
Remember Me - . . . This is very hard, but I think Nintendo.
Okay, with all that said, Nintendo would definitely be good doing their fighting games, while Konami and Bethesda could definitely do everything else. I am also not that much in to fighting games with the exception of DMC. Still, I would have to say Konami or Bethesda.
Because Bethesda has done racing, RPG, FPS, and are currently working with Capcom on their first official horror game, although the FO's had several scary aspects to them IMO.
To decide who I think would be best for Capcom between Nintendo, Konami, and Bethesda, I will judge them with this:
Graphics - Bethesda
Soundtrack - Konami
Gameplay - Hmm . . . This one is probably a tie between Nintendo and Bethesda
Storyline - Tied between Konami and Bethesda, but I think I lean more towards Bethesda
Resident Evil Series - Either Konami or Bethesda. I would be happy with either.
Devil May Cry - Nintendo
Marvel vs. Capcom - Nintendo
Asura's Wrath - Given that there is a sequel, probably Nintendo
Clocktower - Okay, I'm not exactly sure, but I think Capcom did Clocktower 3? If so, then Konami.
Dead Rising - Bethesda
Remember Me - . . . This is very hard, but I think Nintendo.
Okay, with all that said, Nintendo would definitely be good doing their fighting games, while Konami and Bethesda could definitely do everything else. I am also not that much in to fighting games with the exception of DMC. Still, I would have to say Konami or Bethesda.
That was a drafted post, I didn't mean to write that. I revised it above, sorry.