Then I won’t tell you about it, although you certainly get cooking ingredients from some of them, which I know is something Monster Hunter does.
… pardon me, but which game are you talking about? Lara Croft Go?
3 Likes
I don’t even count that as a “game” a game needs an objective really.
and this one
@kylehayman361 Nailed it. I played that game on speakers. Pretty much everyone in the room looked at me funny… because the developers’ creepy torture fetish and Lara’s screams sounded a whole lot like I was browsing some “mature” materials, if you know what I’m saying. No other game has made me so uncomfortable just by playing on speakers.
It’s the most awkward, frustrating mess of a game I’ve ever seen get high praise. It’s a big old pile-o’-sh**, and I’ll never pretend otherwise.
That said, if you enjoyed the gameplay aspects of it when it wasn’t busy taking away camera control to torture the protagonist, check out Rogue Trooper sometime. It’s a pretty great old game based on the first few Rogue Trooper comics that went under the radar, since it came out on PS2/Xbox after everyone had moved on to the 360/PS3. In fact, there’s now a remaster I’m dying to try out, and the formerly timeless Battlefront 2 level graphics now look beautiful with the minor retouches:
You were a bit off about how Tomb Raider’s development has gone, though. All six of the originals were made by CORE Design, back when Eidos was a publisher. After the first came out, the original plan was to spend years developing a sequel when better hardware was around (that would be the PS2), but Eidos found it to be a major success and annualized it. One by one, CORE Design started losing project leaders, and every year there was a new TR title. With 4, they even tried killing off Lara in the end, which of course had to be ignored by the fifth game because Eidos absolutely refused to let the series end.
The 6th title was the big PS2 entry title, and they tried to scale everything up. Eidos was uncooperative and didn’t let them get any extra time to make it, so all of the great ideas and fantastic design that went into the game ended up being quickly sewn together for one utterly broken trainwreck. CORE was relieved of duty and the series got handed off to CD.
A 10th Anniversary project was then made by CORE, but after the pitch and approval, CD stole that too-- unlike CORE, however, CD didn’t even try to be faithful to the original. They remade it in the TR Legend engine, missing countless deadlines and even the entire “10th anniversary” mark, hence why it’s just called “Anniversary.” This first-reboot series is just dreadful imo, but not quite as bad as the new ones. Underworld was what killed the series again, but for one reason or another Crystal Dynamics kept on making TR games.
TR2013 was also Crystal Dynamics, after the SquareEnix buyout of Eidos. They took a new spin on the character by trying to throw out the blatant fanservice and other nonsense that got thrown on for easy teenager-money, but went in the other extreme. It tries so hard to be edgy, thematic, and dark, and has some very disturbing obsession with torture that I’d rather not describe.
In other words, avoid the entire series. The old ones are good but haven’t aged well, the middle ones are dreadful, and the new ones have some decent gameplay soiled by an abundance of absolutely awful, 100% linear, pace-breaking and cringeworthy story elements. Oh, and torture porn. Fun.
4 Likes
well someone is upset tomb raider went in “a” direction 
it’s a decent enough game for what it is imo, not “tomb raider” but fair enough for an action adventure 3rd person shooter “explorer”
i honestly don’t get why/where the rogue trooper comparison keeps coming in (maybe i need to replay it), it’s much much closer to uncharted (which is what it’s trying to ape) and not just some war shooter like rogue trooper or gears…
anyway imo it’s a nice enough game for what it is, even despite the “streamlining”/or focus testing appeasement to just make it another “generic” bang bang collect this-shooty game. Hell put guns in Assassin’s creed and i’d probably still prefer 2013 tomb raider. Might not think it doesn’t deserve much praise, but sure doesn’t deserve that much flack either
unsure what you mean, Crystal Dynamics made all the games except the first one(blood omen), Eidos had no part in it(soul reaver 1), it was Activision that was supposed to be the original publisher (a whole spat between Silicon knights Crystal Dynamics and Activision happened, -Silicon are the same that stupidly tried to sue Epic Games too)
so there is no Eidos in it, it’s “pure” Crystal dynamics as the games were “made” before Eidos even took over their publishing (might even actually have been an entire other CD game that just got repurposed and tweaked into Soul Reaver because either of litigation/commitment, riding of first game’s success or just easier to get finished overall)
4 Likes
ahh wow everyone here can learn a lot :3 and were you talking about angel of darkness? 'cause I can see what they were trying to do it wasn’t bad I thought. and yes you’re right about all that, I accidentally figured that the publisher was on the left of the game box, and the developer on the right haha. dunno why but that made me think eidos was the developer, and they used to develop games right?
2 Likes
also, looky. Eidos is the publisher.
a company can be a publisher without having anything to do with a game/development etc
Eidos is the publisher of soul reaver, because they bought crystal dynamics in 1998 (because activision would no longer touch crystal dynamics or silicon knights -the original ip creators/holders)
soul reaver was already planned, and developed before Eidos bought CD, scheduled for release the same year Eidos bought them, but delayed because of the litigation with silicon knights
Eidos did not have anything to do with soul reaver, whatsoever, publisher title or not…
(just because a company prints a disc, doesn’t mean that company made it/what’s on)
2 Likes
ah right whatever, sorry the game lied to me and I believed it. game boxes with official prints on them usually don’t lie.
I’ll just stay in the corner where I belong.
1 Like
i mean, it’s not like just because “a name on the box” means we should trust “it” 
i’d like to think both the left and right names are wrong on this one 
-even if valve did create the foundation and subsequently bought the guys creating it
-but the Sierrra mark is purely a “we printed the disc” name in this instance too, 100%
it’s enough we get the wrong “boxes”, you shouldn’t be in a corner too, get out and play vidya gamez instead
4 Likes
well at least I was smart enough to notice that on this box.
reeled back at the “Sierra” part. y’know, amazing point and click adventure creators defo made a first person shooty uppy game, jeez what is with that :o
I didn’t even know people did that, bought out a company just to put their names on a box…
nowadays at least most of those things are right. so I just assumed they always were I guess, I just felt betrayed… lied too :o
2 Likes
i don’t think so much it’s always about just getting bought out to get main company name on (i’m gonna venture a guess Eidos was pretty interested in CD for other reasons, IP ownerships too etc -likewise with other game companies/dev/publishers respective acquisitions)
but “printers”, sorta seems like they wanted some type of recognition,
even movies does that; X makes and funds it, but Y doesn’t nothing but distribution -yet gets a “name” in credit too
can’t give a list of games with publisher names on that did nothing but print/distribute, but you can be sure that wouldn’t be a small list
-hell if Compulsion Game’s word is true, that might end up as “current” example with Gearbox’s name appearing on We Happy Few’s box -despite Gearbox not owning it or them and “supposedly” will have 0 influence on the game other than distribution
1 Like
oh don’t get me started on gearbox, I don’t have the brain RAM to learn about evvvvvery game company haha
First and foremost, thank you for the insight, @CptMold. I never cared much for Tomb Raider, never owned any consoles, and so I missed out on certain things due to either lack of interest or lack of contact. One such thing is Tomb Raider history.
Maybe a remake of the earlier games would stick better with the fanbase? I’m asking this despite any legal ties, just wondering out loud if that would sell well.
I’ve never played the first TR games and I have no intention to. As for the middle ones, I remember having fun with Anniversary in 2000-and-something, but having way more fun with the Prince of Persia trilogy – one of my favorite franchises – and therefore giving up on finishing the former in favor of playing the latter.
I have a few things to point out about your observations on TR2013, however. Yes, I only bought it during the “winter” sale, but I did play a handful of hours of it before, at a friend’s. With that being said, I think we should take a few things into account:
- First that not everyone dislikes linear experiences – me included – and maybe the developers felt the market was apt for it at the time of release – whether they were right is another discussion.
- Second, that games are developed mostly by men and while that should be no excuse to do a half-assed, somewhat pornographic job, that fate befalls an enormous amount of games. Don’t even get me started on this mess:
Caham anyway.
- Third, that while I share in yours and @kylehayman361’s sentiment that TR2013 has reviews more positive than it deserves, I think it’s a very difficult game to negatively review. It’s short enough to not upset the majority of its target audience, it hits people in the face with nostalgia (supposedly), it has good graphics, good voice acting… if Steam finally added the possibility for neutral reviews, I’m sure we’d see a considerable plunge in TR2013’s statistics. As it is, however, the game pleases a niche of people that… enjoy all the negative aspects you pointed out. Which is sad, because products are designed for a clientele, and sometimes I wonder if the clientele isn’t more fucked than we all take the developers themselves to be.
/rantover
3 Likes
wow… and i thought the sex in Snake Eater was cringy…
i keep getting the feeling more and more, that i’m not missing out on much by holding off on getting/playing MGSV each time, the more i learn/see of it lol…
-maybe it’s best if i just repress all MGS memories since 2004
2 Likes
I’m not allowed to talk about MGSV, I have a very opinionated biased towards anything with a “Hideo Kojima” on it. >.>
DEATH STRANDING HERE I COME :DDDDDDDDDDD
Alrighty, so THORN is a 3D idle game which takes maybe half an hour to hit the dissappointing ending. I recommend trying it for a few mins anyway, just don’t expect too much.
Uurnog is as far as I can tell the only real game here besides Cat girl wo salad, kinda puzzle-ish platformer but really without much of a explanation of what you are supposed to do and why and where tf you are…dunno if I’ll stick to it, I guess not, but def. worth a try!
3 Likes
Idk I enjoyed MGS:V for the 30h I’ve played it. But my favourite MG game is Peace Walker, so I suppose I’m not average about this 
Can’t really get into the Hack n Slash MG tho 
2 Likes
t a l k
a b o u t
M G S V
!
(i’m still unsure whether or not i should send money to #FuckKonami and get this title eventually or just let “my” MGS series “end” after snake eater…)
1 Like
Get it! Get it! I like Konami cause they are very generous in their card game xD Also it’s kinda unique together wt MG:PW which isn’t available on steam 