We need another series like Tomb Raider

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Meh, if it's not for PC it doesn't exist IMO.

Nice to see we're dealing with an intelligent person here.

It's not intelligent to refuse to purchase a piece of expensive corporate equipment as a prerequisite to playing a computer game?

I think it is.

That's because you're a moron.
You complain about there not being a type of game like the one you described, yet there is a an excellent trilogy exactly like that and you refuse to acknowledge it because you're a PC elitist.

If I told you about a book that was really good and I think you would like, and then told you "oh, but you need to buy the E-ReaderMaster 5000(tm) to read it", would you condemn me for accusing you of being a "paper-book elitist" if you refused?

I think so - and it would be totally justified.

You don't need an unrealistic example, here's a realistic one:
If there was a book that was only available on the Kindle, would you buy it?

The man's right, we need some games like TR on the PC. If you wanna argue a (good) port of Uncharted could be just that, fine, but don't assume we're elitists just because we don't own a console, some people prefer a PC and maintaining a new PC doesn't leave a lot of leftover income for a console as well next to it.

Thank you.

And I now know what a Kindle is - thanks for that.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

well ok guys.
no one is going to say the indiana jones series?

I liked Emperor's Tomb and Infernal Machine - but aren't they both over a decade old? I'm talking about new series.

There's a new Tomb Raider coming out, but it's looking like some terrible survival horror monstrosity.

 

[DeadYorick]

OP, have you tried the Guardian of Light game? It's not like traditional Tomb Raider, but if you've got a friend to play co-op it can be really fun. There's plenty of exploration and clever puzzles to solve. I never tried it without a partner but I imagine it's still the same basic experience.

Guardian of Light felt like Tomb Raider, if you simplified it's gameplay down to the point where you could play it in an hour, and experience a full game as a result.

well ok guys.
no one is going to say the indiana jones series?

I liked Emperor's Tomb and Infernal Machine - but aren't they both over a decade old? I'm talking about new series.

There's a new Tomb Raider coming out, but it's looking like some terrible survival horror monstrosity.

I'd suggest trying it out, I mean after Underworld it couldn't possibly get any worse.

 

[DioWallachia]

*snip*

I think you missed my point. I was talking more about marketing and not the technical advancements the games made. (I personally was more impressed by Soul Reaver's lack of loading screens then I was by it's cutscenes). Soul Reaver itself was marketed in the same magazines as games like Tomb Raider were, and it ran on a similar engine (so much so reviewers believed a 3D puzzle game by Eidos would play identically to Tomb Raider). It even featured a similar type of puzzle (blocks, oh the reliance on block puzzles that game had. Especially in the Silenced Cathedral)

hm..... marketing, the source of all evil. I wonder how many games got fucked up by their marketing? (EA is an expert in fucking it up). For Tomb Raider, i dont remember when it started but the marketing for Lara was always on emphasis about being a sex symbol rather than ilustrating that she was just a Femenine Indiana Jones.

 

[DioWallachia]

I've read some of the posts in this thread in regards to the games market and being unoriginal/derivative, and I'd just like to point out that it's probably less a fear of change and more an unwillingness to risk investing in something that you might not like. Games are expensive, especially when they first come out, and no one wants to spend $60+ on something they're not going to enjoy. It's not easy making a new, completely original IP and getting people excited about it. It's a big risk for both the developers and the consumers, because of how much money is being invested on both sides. We're never going to escape the occasional bad purchase, but if we already know what we like and we know that a specific game/series has or will deliver, then that's what we're going to spend our money on.

They can still try to have a division for making indie games to test innovate ideas that the artist may have and if they fuck up it not a big deal because they didnt spend like 100 millons on it, at best only 20 thousands. If it succeed, then they make a AAA sequel with the foundings of a big proyect like it.

 

[DeadYorick]

I've read some of the posts in this thread in regards to the games market and being unoriginal/derivative, and I'd just like to point out that it's probably less a fear of change and more an unwillingness to risk investing in something that you might not like. Games are expensive, especially when they first come out, and no one wants to spend $60+ on something they're not going to enjoy. It's not easy making a new, completely original IP and getting people excited about it. It's a big risk for both the developers and the consumers, because of how much money is being invested on both sides. We're never going to escape the occasional bad purchase, but if we already know what we like and we know that a specific game/series has or will deliver, then that's what we're going to spend our money on.

They can still try to have a division for making indie games to test innovate ideas that the artist may have and if they fuck up it not a big deal because they didnt spend like 100 millons on it, at best only 20 thousands. If it succeed, then they make a AAA sequel with the foundings of a big proyect like it.

Your forgetting big corporations have shareholders to please. Who are the only people they are truly loyal to.

They cant just simply risk 20 million dollars on a risky project without everyone's say. It's how corporations work and its never that simple.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

OP, have you tried the Guardian of Light game? It's not like traditional Tomb Raider, but if you've got a friend to play co-op it can be really fun. There's plenty of exploration and clever puzzles to solve. I never tried it without a partner but I imagine it's still the same basic experience.

Guardian of Light felt like Tomb Raider, if you simplified it's gameplay down to the point where you could play it in an hour, and experience a full game as a result.

well ok guys.
no one is going to say the indiana jones series?

I liked Emperor's Tomb and Infernal Machine - but aren't they both over a decade old? I'm talking about new series.

There's a new Tomb Raider coming out, but it's looking like some terrible survival horror monstrosity.

I'd suggest trying it out, I mean after Underworld it couldn't possibly get any worse.

I liked Underworld. The basics were there - good puzzles and lush environments. I don't know what everyone hates about it.

 

[DeadYorick]

OP, have you tried the Guardian of Light game? It's not like traditional Tomb Raider, but if you've got a friend to play co-op it can be really fun. There's plenty of exploration and clever puzzles to solve. I never tried it without a partner but I imagine it's still the same basic experience.

Guardian of Light felt like Tomb Raider, if you simplified it's gameplay down to the point where you could play it in an hour, and experience a full game as a result.

well ok guys.
no one is going to say the indiana jones series?

I liked Emperor's Tomb and Infernal Machine - but aren't they both over a decade old? I'm talking about new series.

There's a new Tomb Raider coming out, but it's looking like some terrible survival horror monstrosity.

I'd suggest trying it out, I mean after Underworld it couldn't possibly get any worse.

I liked Underworld. The basics were there - good puzzles and lush environments. I don't know what everyone hates about it.

Story making no sense (Why does Lara not own Excalibur any more? Only to gain Mjolnir which acts identical to her mythical sword she forged in the previous game), padding (Oh here's a giant shiva statue, lets go through the same puzzle rooms twice), fanservice (granted it's in every game but my GOD the wetsuit pissed me off), unnecessary marketing for the graphics (I remember practically all the marketing went into how intense the engine was, and how ahead of it's time it was. It reminded me of Fable 2's marketing and how you never paid any attention to any of the engine tweaks they made), making weapons all unlocked at the start since why have progression, and make you find equipment, making combat ridiculously easy and not even necessary in the game really (Combat felt tedious in Underworld, at least Anniversary did combat nicely with it's semi bullet time Max Payne-esque dodges), the QTE events where you just moved out of the way of an obstacle and calling it "What would Lara do", Why does Amanda Everett look like she's 45, and the LENGTH.

I remember being immensely surprised at Underworld's length. I bought it on a trip and I wanted to play it in a hotel, and I was surprised because I had only a few hours at the hotel and I beat the game fairly early before check out. Not that Legend was anything to write home about but it wasn't absurdly short. (I remember the days when Tomb Raider games took you an entire week to beat, and that wasn't accounting for the well placed secrets that were in the map)

Oh and the annoying buggy jumps. I recall when I replayed Underworld spending two hours (timed and everything with a watch) on one jump because Lara would not physically connect with the ledge, and only after shimmying perfectly on the one I was standing on, would she properly jump and connect.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

Another option would be to rent a ps3 (the videostore i go to does that) and the uncharted series. You wouldn`t spend a fortune and you could decide on your own if you like it. This thread really reminds me how few games of this kind exist compared to other genres. Is i am alive comming to pc or is it console exclusive? It`s another setting but maybe you will like that one.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Meh, if it's not for PC it doesn't exist IMO.

Nice to see we're dealing with an intelligent person here.

It's not intelligent to refuse to purchase a piece of expensive corporate equipment as a prerequisite to playing a computer game?

Of course it isn't intelligent. Don't want to buy a PS3? Fine. Buy a PS2 and "Sands of Time". That should do it. Get over it. Every game I've played is better on game consoles than the PC. The controls are far more responsive and easier to grasp. I want to make my character jump without having to memorize a flow chart.

Or get a controller and I think you have other problems if you believe the average PC game needs a flow chart for controls. I am not saying I agree with his argument but yours is equally as flawed.

You could always try the PoP games and the Assassin Creed games if that is the ASSpect of the game you liked. Wierdo not paying attention to its true ASSets. Damn those ASSets of steel.

Okay, I overacted and generalized. Not all PC games are un-responsive, but good controls are the price of being a PC exclusive gamer. Game consoles are designed to play games, so the gear is made perfectly for the job. PC controllers are okay, but they bug up to much.

Then get a 360 or PS3 controller and there is nothing wrong with the controls of the PC. The only games consoles have better controls than PC on are Fighters, Racing, 3d Platformers and arguably 3rd(for 3rd person in general) and 1st Person Shooters. Although Fighters is a non issue as if you have the money you should be using a Fight pad. This is coming from someone who was originally a pure console gamer.

 

[F'Angus]

I would love an open Tomb Raider style game... Sort of the size of Skyrim, with there being more traps and more dungeons being harder and more complex.

I do also mean to get into Uncharted, just need to gather some money.

well, if you're going Elder Scrolls, there's Redguard, but I dunno about the mapsize of it

Haha yeah Redguard was massive, especially because of the randomly generated areas.

 

[DioWallachia]

I've read some of the posts in this thread in regards to the games market and being unoriginal/derivative, and I'd just like to point out that it's probably less a fear of change and more an unwillingness to risk investing in something that you might not like. Games are expensive, especially when they first come out, and no one wants to spend $60+ on something they're not going to enjoy. It's not easy making a new, completely original IP and getting people excited about it. It's a big risk for both the developers and the consumers, because of how much money is being invested on both sides. We're never going to escape the occasional bad purchase, but if we already know what we like and we know that a specific game/series has or will deliver, then that's what we're going to spend our money on.

They can still try to have a division for making indie games to test innovate ideas that the artist may have and if they fuck up it not a big deal because they didnt spend like 100 millons on it, at best only 20 thousands. If it succeed, then they make a AAA sequel with the foundings of a big proyect like it.

Your forgetting big corporations have shareholders to please. Who are the only people they are truly loyal to.

They cant just simply risk 20 million dollars on a risky project without everyone's say. It's how corporations work and its never that simple.

Dude, i said 20 THOUSAND not 20 MILLONS of dollars for a Indie proyect

 

[Petromir]

Meh, if it's not for PC it doesn't exist IMO.

Nice to see we're dealing with an intelligent person here.

It's not intelligent to refuse to purchase a piece of expensive corporate equipment as a prerequisite to playing a computer game?

Of course it isn't intelligent. Don't want to buy a PS3? Fine. Buy a PS2 and "Sands of Time". That should do it. Get over it. Every game I've played is better on game consoles than the PC. The controls are far more responsive and easier to grasp. I want to make my character jump without having to memorize a flow chart.

Then plug a controller into your PC......

The PC has by far the biggest choice in controllers. For a start the vast majority of modern console controllers work on the PC.

THere are plenty of reasoned arguments for consoles over the PC, but control scheme is rarely one.

 

[Evilpigeon]

The amount of angry responses the Op's gotten for not owning a console... Christ it's like he suddenly doesn't have a point because it's possible for him to spend several £100 to play a £50 game. You'd have to be absolutley in love with the game to pay 4-500% of the price for it, I mean if you have a pc there are very few games you can't play already, it'd be such a waste of money.

It'd be nice if there were a few more pc 3d platformers though, playing through the Uncharted games are the only reason I use the family ps3.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Prince of Persia:
- Sands of Time
- Warrior Within
- The Two thrones
- The Forgotten Sands
No guns and less tits but it does everything else better then Tomb Raider

And obviously
Because I just know none of you motherfuckers played it.

 

[ElPatron]

And yet I still exist. You can choose to believe I, or a game does not exist to you but you would still be wrong.

Argh. If you had never posted that comment, you would have never made an impact in my life.

Uncharted never made an impact on his life. Therefore, it doesn't exist to him.

The dude was being perfectly reasonable but you called him an idiot because of semantics. Good game.