• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Tomb Raider Review Thread!

Fracas

#fuckonami
what's the deal?


Needing a transparent background for this:
EkFTONO.jpg

I keep getting a ton of jaggies.
 

DieH@rd

Banned
Nobody knows why is OT late.

DO I HAVE PERMISSION TO CREATE TOMB RAIDER OT THAT ONLY HAS DOZENS UPON DOZENS OF PICTURES OF CAMILLA? :D



The hair effect is something AMD exclusive?

Nope. Its supported by all DX11 cards, but Radeon 7000 line has best Direct Compute performance, so it will work best with them.
 
Outside of that transparency, everything's done. Waiting on my graphics guy to send me banners.

PS don't expect anything crazy, it's my first OT, haha. I like it though

As long as there are no Oprah gifs in the actual OP, I'm sure it'll be great :p

Will sub but I don't think I'm going to contribute until I play through the thing so I can go in fresh. Thanks for the effort.
 
OP, could you add the Conan O'Brian review and score to the OP?
He's the only game journalist I care about.

His score didn't seem to mesh with his actual review though

I'd sooner trust what a few GAFfers say than what a group of "journalists" would say about a video game after having been to a bunch of events with the game's developers & getting buddy buddy with'em.

Yeah, I believe you were the one talking about how most reviewers these days just don't think critically?

I mean we've been getting all these reviews about how the narrative clashes with the gameplay, or the combat is just so good like omg, but the multiplayer is tacked on.

I don't care about all that, that was what I was expecting anyway. How's the freaking gameplay? How are the mechanics? Is it a cohesive, consistent vision? How's the level design? Puzzles, challenge, replayability (do cutscenes and QTEs bog the game down)? Do the tools work with the vision to provide players fun ways to manipulate the game to win in a way that feels creative to them?
 

nel e nel

Member
That's cool and all, but in no part of my post did I talk about subjective vs. objective analysis. Instead I was responding to Solo's perception of the "GAF" criticisms contra the review outlet assessment by showing that the latter does not negate the former.

And I was responding to your implication that game reviewers are a bunch of idiots who are easily entertained, by showing that your opinion does not negate their experience/review score. It's a two-way street.

And by calling out journalists for not thinking critically and then citing Arthur Gies as an example, yes, you did take it into subjective vs. objective analysis territory.

"If a game I don't like gets a high score, the reviewer must not be thinking critically enough."

This is the same argument that comes up every. fucking. time. the debate about games reviews comes up, and all it really boils down to is that people just want their biases confirmed.

So far, all the reviews I've watched and read have been very well thought out and balanced, with equal parts praise of Tomb Raider's strengths and criticism leveled against it's weaknesses, and yet the overwhelming majority of the scores are 8s and above.
 

vidcons

Banned
Didn't read a review. Didn't even see the scores. Just got this for $36 on GMG and I'm ready to hate it come March 5th.

Guys, I've already got about 3 paragraphs ready. Just going to mad lib the specifics.

One Week!!!!!!!!
 

madmackem

Member
And I was responding to your implication that game reviewers are a bunch of idiots who are easily entertained, by showing that your opinion does not negate their experience/review score. It's a two-way street.

"If a game I don't like gets a high score, the reviewer must not be thinking critically enough."

This is the same argument that comes up every. fucking. time. the debate about games reviews comes up, and all it really boils down to is that people just want their biases confirmed.

Theres something strange happening on gaf over this game i dont get it. Its reviewing good to well across the board thats normally a good sign but thats some how being brought up as a negative.

Id understand if this was a backlash to some old franchise people hold dear but the old tomb raider games were pretty shitty. Its a reboot of a average game series where the idea of the main character was always better than the execution of the gameplay. Very strange.
 
Didn't read a review. Didn't even see the scores. Just got this for $36 on GMG and I'm ready to hate it come March 5th.

Guys, I've already got about 3 paragraphs ready. Just going to mad lib the specifics.

One Week!!!!!!!!

Let me know when you need adverbs and adjectives. I love those things.
 

nel e nel

Member
Theres something strange happening on gaf over this game i dont get it. Its reviewing good to well across the board thats normally a good sign but thats some how being brought up as a negative.

Id understand if this was a backlash to some old franchise people hold dear but the old tomb raider games were pretty shitty. Its a reboot of a average game series where the idea of the main character was always better than the execution of the gameplay. Very strange.

Honestly, I can give a shit if any one person likes a game or not. I don't really care if the GAF hive mind approves or disapproves of a game, if there even is a GAF hive mind. It' just this common practice of trying to push one's opinion as fact, and the unwillingness to allow other people to enjoy something that you don't that usually accompanies that practice.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Theres something strange happening on gaf over this game i dont get it. Its reviewing good to well across the board thats normally a good sign but thats some how being brought up as a negative.

Id understand if this was a backlash to some old franchise people hold dear but the old tomb raider games were pretty shitty. Its a reboot of a average game series where the idea of the main character was always better than the execution of the gameplay. Very strange.

People really must have the memory of an ant or something.

There is no 'new' trend to this. One, many people don't hold ANY game reviews in high regard - I know I don't, whether it was for a game I anticipated or not. And then the simple question is: why? Why don't many people hold reviews in high regard?

The reason is simple: Years of endless journalistic controversies/scandals directly cutting at the heart of games journalisms credibility. It could be for a game I anticipate more than life itself, could be for fuckin' Mother 4, and I would not for a second blink as if a review is telling me anything one way or the other about how the game quality actually is.

Years of the predictable march of AAA modern dudebro nonsense games so predictably scoring their 9-10s, 85+ metacritic like a well greased engine of non-thinking zombie critiques (here's me predicting Tomb Raider's obvious outcome in reviews back in December) from people who don't know shit about games, or the series they're reviewing a game for, or hold wide ranging contempt for gamers in general.

Is it any surprise so many people don't hold game reviews in particular high regard?

The more shocking thing is that there are STILL people who think a metacritic at 85 for a game negates some criticism and automatically relegates the critics into some troll category or some shit - we know metacritic don't mean shit, and it's a piss poor mechanism for a defense of one's opinion even if it did. People need to think for themselves.

Edit: I won't even waste much time as to your idea of what the Tomb Raider series was; I can assure you the gameplay trappings were massively more appealing than the main character.
 
Theres something strange happening on gaf over this game i dont get it. Its reviewing good to well across the board thats normally a good sign but thats some how being brought up as a negative.

Id understand if this was a backlash to some old franchise people hold dear but the old tomb raider games were pretty shitty. Its a reboot of a average game series where the idea of the main character was always better than the execution of the gameplay. Very strange.
The weirdness here is because even the positive reviews are negative towards the same aspects of the game as the detractors here - overemphasis on combat over environmental puzzles, QTEs, seemingly pointless collectibles, unrewarding XP system and unlocks, dissonance between narrative and action, shoehorned multiplayer, copying Uncharted and other games, etc. I'd think that part of the reason for the "modern gaming checklist" approach to features is to get higher review scores, so its easy to be cynical.

But at the end of the day this still looks a polished game with great pacing and some decent exploration to it regardless.
 

RagnarokX

Member
Hmmm, my opinion might yet be swayed. According to youtube videos it takes about 4 hours to get good. Still a lot of shooting and still pretty guided and actiony, but it finally looks like something interesting. I think I'll rent it.
 

dreamfall

Member
The weirdness here is because even the positive reviews are negative towards the same aspects of the game as the detractors here - overemphasis on combat over environmental puzzles, QTEs, seemingly pointless collectibles, unrewarding XP system and unlocks, dissonance between narrative and action, shoehorned multiplayer, copying Uncharted and other games, etc. I'd think that part of the reason for the "modern gaming checklist" approach to features is to get higher review scores, so its easy to be cynical.

But at the end of the day this still looks a polished game with great pacing and some decent exploration to it regardless.

Couldn't have described it any better- hell, all those issues are things we've been repeating in every Tomb Raider thread.

But it should be good to play through and really evaluate when it comes out!
 
Id understand if this was a backlash to some old franchise people hold dear but the old tomb raider games were pretty shitty. Its a reboot of a average game series where the idea of the main character was always better than the execution of the gameplay. Very strange.

Well, my opinion is just mostly opposite that. Lara was the least important factor of the series for me. I don't fault anyone for getting bored with games based around methodical, slow paced exploration and experimentation and poor combat, nor, despite my affection for it, would I ever call it the best series ever. What I enjoyed about it I'm already planning on going into detail about in the OT.

It's a combination of holding the earliest entries dear and seeing this reboot as a waste of energy making a me-too cash grab AAA title. As already mentioned, taking the IP in a completely different direction worked great with Guardian of Light. If this ends up opening up and being relatively fun after an initial hand-held cinematic start, maybe I'll be able to enjoy it too.

If that does happen though, I'm never going to bother paying attention to PR releases from SE ever again. Then again, it's not just a matter of misrepresenting the game, or even of me clearly not being part of the demographic they were trying to attract with what they'd shown. They didn't really misrepresent the game, they just showed one part of a bipolar game which is totally different from the rest of it. It'd be like Brutal Legend all over again for me.
 

Harts316

Member
People really must have the memory of an ant or something.

There is no 'new' trend to this. One, many people don't hold ANY game reviews in high regard - I know I don't, whether it was for a game I anticipated or not. And then the simple question is: why? Why don't many people hold reviews in high regard?

The reason is simple: Years of endless journalistic controversies/scandals directly cutting at the heart of games journalisms credibility. It could be for a game I anticipate more than life itself, could be for fuckin' Mother 4, and I would not for a second blink as if a review is telling me anything one way or the other about how the game quality actually is.

Years of the predictable march of AAA modern dudebro nonsense games so predictably scoring their 9-10s, 85+ metacritic like a well greased engine of non-thinking zombie critiques (here's me predicting Tomb Raider's obvious outcome in reviews back in December) from people who don't know shit about games, or the series they're reviewing a game for, or hold wide ranging contempt for gamers in general.

Is it any surprise so many people don't hold game reviews in particular high regard?

The more shocking thing is that there are STILL people who think a metacritic at 85 for a game negates some criticism and automatically relegates the critics into some troll category or some shit - we know metacritic don't mean shit, and it's a piss poor mechanism for a defense of one's opinion even if it did. People need to think for themselves.

Edit: I won't even waste much time as to your idea of what the Tomb Raider series was; I can assure you the gameplay trappings were massively more appealing than the main character.

You criticize people for caring about a Metacritic score, but isn't the Metacritic score protecting against the whole reason why you hate reviews in the first place (lack of journalistic integrity)?
 
Even though I am buying this, and positive reviews have helped reinforce my decision, I will NEVER buy a game based off of reviews alone again. LA Noire is one of the fucking worst purchases I've ever made.
 
You criticize people for caring about a Metacritic score, but isn't the Metacritic score protecting against the whole reason why you hate reviews in the first place (lack of journalistic integrity)?

Well, logically, if you're operating under the opinion that the majority of all your sample data is coming from tainted sources, how would an average from that set represent anything of value to you at all?
 

sublimit

Banned
Theres something strange happening on gaf over this game i dont get it. Its reviewing good to well across the board thats normally a good sign but thats some how being brought up as a negative.

Id understand if this was a backlash to some old franchise people hold dear but the old tomb raider games were pretty shitty. Its a reboot of a average game series where the idea of the main character was always better than the execution of the gameplay. Very strange.

There lies the problem in your logic.The first 5 TR games are still being loved by the majority of long time fans and they want the core elements of the series to remain and be improved without being dumped down and dilluted like they have been in the past 3 Crystal games and from the look of things in the upcoming one as well.

It's mostly casuals and people who never really played the classics beyond a superficial level that think the old games were "shitty".Also people who have become way too comfortable with today's automation and handholding trends in gaming.For these people the upcoming TR seems to be a blessing but for oldschool TR fans (those who didn't give a shit about Lara in the first place) this direction is the final nail in the coffin.
 

Amir0x

Banned
You criticize people for caring about a Metacritic score, but isn't the Metacritic score protecting against the whole reason why you hate reviews in the first place (lack of journalistic integrity)?

Not even remotely. Or at least, it has not been the case to date... and so I don't know why it would start working that way.

Games Journalism is rampant with cronyism, an insular twitterverse where the reverb of industry-wide narratives spreads like wildfire, widespread horrific practices vis-a-vis publisher/developer relationships (regarding the way NDAs work; access to titles work; expectations of review scores if you want access in the future; pressure to keep your review within the sphere of other review scores).

And so there's simply no way at this point to tell who is sharing their legitimate perspective or who is falling victim to one of the near endless problems with game journalism.

Which is not to say many aren't legitimate perspectives by genuine gamers, it's just to say there's no way to tell one way or the other and thus by default there can be no value.

That's why I have neoGAF, because there are individuals on here I trust even when I disagree with them and I know will give me their honest assessment untainted by anything else.

Naturally, you may so feel inclined to trust all reviews or think the metacritic means something, but people need to stop acting surprised that there's so many people who hold no regard for it. There has been no end to the fucked up shit we've learned about game journalism these past few years.
 
Top Bottom