This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Tomb Raider reminds me of Arkham Asylum in some ways

#1pothocketPosted 3/19/2013 6:47:12 AM
Not in regards to anything specific but in the sense that the game mechanics can support much more open game structure than what it is.

Even though Arkham Asylum was very linear, it was clear the mechanics of the game were were running on a more open system. Then, with Arkham City, it turned out to be true. Very little in the way Batman plays was changed between the two games even though the game structure was completely different.

This Tomb Raider feels the same way to me. It's the way if Lara stumbles enough she'll correct it into a slide - even though there are scripted sliding sections, the actual sliding itself is not a special script. It's built into the behavior of the character.

Pressing X to ledge grab QTE is another good example of built in behavior. More often than not it's unscripted, simply occurring in response to the proper conditions being met.

Even something as simple as having the choice between using the torch or flame arrows to light stuff on fire speaks volumes about the "world" the developer was building. I had to restart a certain puzzle a couple times and I'm like, "why am I walking over there every time to burn that rope away when I can just shoot it from here?"

So I am expecting a Tomb Raider 2 to be similar to Arkham City in regards to how much more open they are compared to their respective original games.
---
well I am not like your dad. I worked as a chef at TGIF-Mattson
#2MrMikeMaPosted 3/19/2013 6:57:37 AM
Let's just hope the puzzles are better and more complex, and they rely less on the 3rd person shooter aspect.

Tomb Raiders only fault is that it is just too easy to 100%. I finished my first play at about 84% completion, only took me about another hour or 2 to finish 100%

And the game just isn't good enough to explore again once you've seen it all. it's kind of a 1 and done ride.
#3OKRecords1138Posted 3/19/2013 7:50:39 AM
I don't find 100% completing a game with ease to be a fault. More so a pro. But, to each his own.
---
See all your favorite toys of yesterday and today at The Toy Box - thetoybox1138.blogspot.com
#4pothocket(Topic Creator)Posted 3/19/2013 8:00:57 AM
I think 100% this game was perfectly done. You can upgrade to have collectibles be seen through walls and even on the map but not the challenges. Almost every area has multiple hidden challenges that need to be hunted down the old fashioned way.
---
well I am not like your dad. I worked as a chef at TGIF-Mattson
#5LuckNotDoWithErPosted 3/19/2013 1:48:49 PM
Except it's not as good.
#6Dragon NexusPosted 3/19/2013 5:46:54 PM
Honestly, I felt AC kinda suffered a bit from being open world.
What did the open world really bring to the table? Having a selection of wide open spaces linked by paths within which are "dungeon" areas worked a lot better than the open expanse of not-a-lot that was Arkham City.

Not to say AC was bad or anything, it really wasn't, but in some ways the open world removed some of the structure and focus that Asylum had.

Same is true for Tomb Raider, having larger exploration areas interspersed with tighter more restrictive puzzle or set piece areas allows the developer to channel the attention of the player, to create a focussed and more controlled environment to really give the players a fun journey. You can structure the world a lot better if you set boundaries.

If you've ever watched Egoraptor's Sequilitis on Castlevania, he delves into that matter when comparing Castlevania 1 and 2, how the first game was a level based experience where they could craft the levels and put enemies in certain places knowing where the player was going to go and adjust accordingly, as opposed to Castlevania 2 where everything was non-linear and you'd walk back and forth through the same areas with just "some enemies, I dunno whatever" dotted around.
---
"The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never be sure if they're true" - Abraham Lincoln
#7Killah PriestPosted 3/19/2013 5:48:18 PM
But I liked Castlevania 2 significantly more than 1!
---
Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone.
The armory of god is guarding me but all you can see is holographic artistry.
#8Arucard05Posted 3/19/2013 5:48:50 PM
From: Dragon Nexus | #006
Honestly, I felt AC kinda suffered a bit from being open world.
What did the open world really bring to the table? Having a selection of wide open spaces linked by paths within which are "dungeon" areas worked a lot better than the open expanse of not-a-lot that was Arkham City.


I agree with this. In many ways I think AC improved on Asylum, but the open world never felt as well developed as Arkham.
---
www.bewaretherobotsquad.com
It's better than bad.
#9Dragon NexusPosted 3/19/2013 7:56:14 PM
From: Arucard05 | #008
I agree with this. In many ways I think AC improved on Asylum, but the open world never felt as well developed as Arkham.


The parts of AC that worked best were the more linear, enclosed, dungeon-esque areas.
And you didn't need an open world to link those things up.

In a way, Rocksteady shot themselves in the foot with the first game. I remember a preview interview where they said they asked fans what they wanted in a sequel, and all they could come up with was "More Arkham Asylum, please!"
They seemed to get everything right the first time. Where exactly do you go from perfection?
---
"The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never be sure if they're true" - Abraham Lincoln