Zero Punctuation: Tomb Raider

[lacktheknack]

Great review once again Yahtzee! I think all games should strive to be reviewed by you, it's like a rite of passage for good games to be ravaged by you. It's like a roast almost. Anyways, loved the game, loved the review, nice day to all!

Edit: Forgot to mention, hey feminism, notice how no chicks in tomb raider died? NOT ONE. Of all the deaths, good guys and bad guys, WERE ALL MALE.

Natla died twice. Horrifically.

Sophia Lee got fried hilariously.

Also, Lara Croft puts a bullet between her mother's eyes. She either died there, or a few decades before, depending on how you look at it.

Also, we watch a bunch of the Peru expedition get killed off.

There aren't tons of examples, but saying "NOT ONE" is just inaccurate.

EDIT: Oops, you meant just the new game, didn't you? DAMN these freaking naming conventions.

 

[Baresark]

Holy shit, I thought I was the only one who realized there wasn't an actual character arc for the character. She is innocent and naive, then badass the next moment. Also, the gameplay is completely removed from the character development. At no point does what is going on in the game reflect the cut scenes and how Lara is supposed to be changing (arcing). From moment one she goes from being reasonably good at killing everything that moves to being an extremely efficient killer. It's still a good game, but all the posturing about a story about a woman who is afraid to even talk back to her reflection at the beginning, to an arc that is supposed to make her a defiant, strong, adventurous... adventurer just takes away from the overall experience for me. Also, the fact that they are concentrating exclusively on MP expansion and ignoring the SP is a big turn off when everything is said and done.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

HE probably would, but the rest of us wouldn't because we know we're not supposed to.

Fuck what we're "supposed" to do. If I'm playing a game, I'm identifying as that person because I'm controlling his actions. It doesn't matter if it's Mario, CJ from San Andreas or Lara Croft. When I'm watching a movie, I'm watching a person. When I'm playing a game, I am that person. It's just that simple.

Right and wrong. I think games are meant to be about me, but aren't always. That's what sets them apart from fiction and film, but not all take advantage of that. Tomb Raider had me telling Lara what to do, but at no time did it feel like I was in her situation, or that I was in any way involved besides in a totally mindless, almost insulting way. It was like reading a book and when the character decides to do something, getting a prompt to tap the page 8 times to proceed. I think that's what made it a poor game more than anything.

 

[zumbledum]

Captain Walker (i.e. me) didn't decide to use white phosphorus. The developers forced us to use it.

That is true, except in using that example, Yahtzee was talking about character in-game choice, not player choice. In the setting of Spec Ops, Walker, as the army Captain investigating Dubai that he is, chose to use the white phosphorus while his squad objected to it, saying they had other options. You as a player don't technically have other options, but, in the scale of Spec Ops, the character of Captain Walker did.

Interesting justification , and imo the biggest mistake made in that game which would of been good if i could empathize at least with walker but as hes a total fucking idiot that makes blatantly bad decisions i spend half the time screaming at him for being a twat and the other walking forwards getting him shot because his death is more entertaining than carrying on.

But that old rant aside i still dont get why its different than tomb raider, whats to stop the same argument being used on tomb raider and say lara decides not us?


OT fun episode again , and whoa steady on that was approaching something akin to a review

 

[PunkRex]

But arn't some characters FORCED to develope? Just a thought, I still havn't played it yet.

 

[Kennetic]

Great review once again Yahtzee! I think all games should strive to be reviewed by you, it's like a rite of passage for good games to be ravaged by you. It's like a roast almost. Anyways, loved the game, loved the review, nice day to all!

Edit: Forgot to mention, hey feminism, notice how no chicks in tomb raider died? NOT ONE. Of all the deaths, good guys and bad guys, WERE ALL MALE.

Natla died twice. Horrifically.

Sophia Lee got fried hilariously.

Also, Lara Croft puts a bullet between her mother's eyes. She either died there, or a few decades before, depending on how you look at it.

Also, we watch a bunch of the Peru expedition get killed off.

There aren't tons of examples, but saying "NOT ONE" is just inaccurate.

EDIT: Oops, you meant just the new game, didn't you? DAMN these freaking naming conventions.

Lol, yea I've only played the new one. I didn't really care it was basically a sudden clarity clarence moment and I only put it there because it crossed my mind at the time.

 

[Kennetic]

Edit: Forgot to mention, hey feminism, notice how no chicks in tomb raider died? NOT ONE. Of all the deaths, good guys and bad guys, WERE ALL MALE.

Your point?

It was just a random sudden clarity clarence moment for me. I didn't actually care

 

[Khanht Cope]

Holy shit, I thought I was the only one who realized there wasn't an actual character arc for the character. She is innocent and naive, then badass the next moment. Also, the gameplay is completely removed from the character development. At no point does what is going on in the game reflect the cut scenes and how Lara is supposed to be changing (arcing). From moment one she goes from being reasonably good at killing everything that moves to being an extremely efficient killer. It's still a good game, but all the posturing about a story about a woman who is afraid to even talk back to her reflection at the beginning, to an arc that is supposed to make her a defiant, strong, adventurous... adventurer just takes away from the overall experience for me.

Haven't played the game to be able to form my own opinion of it yet; but the jarring shift everyone talks about doesn't necessarily mean "there isn't an arc" so much as the arc is broken because the writers and game designers appeared to be working toward two different visions for the game.

Was the game supposed to be this movie-esque character focused thing, where the game design messed it up? or was a layout for the game type already in place when they decided to bring in some writers to try and do an intricate way to rationalize all the stuff in a way where a new version of the character can get away with it?

Did popular backlash against perceptions of linearity (you need a degree of linearity and restriction for structured, well-paced, planned story-telling; giving the player more freedom is incompatible and increases the need for more abstract narrative ideas) and perceived downgrading of the character's "power" lead to hasty back-pedalling that compromised the overall product?

From a story perspective, would we have ended up with something quite a bit better if the game design had played in line with the writer direction and they were able to just do their thing with proper pacing for a transition within the character arc?

Writing for a video game can be a lot more difficult than it seems, because the instances where the story takes and maintains shape before the game design rather than vice versa, is comparatively a lot more rare.

 

[Mahoshonen]

I want to know how this whole argument about Spec Ops came up in the first place. It seems like a really bizaare tangent.

EDIT: Oh yeah, the game was still on my play list. So thanks to all of you for spoiling that part. Jerks.

Did you see Toy Story 3, yet? I just want to know so I don't spoil that Woody was imagining Buzz the whole time.

Oh, wait...

Don't be an ass. The thread topic has nothing to do with Spec Ops save for a single clip of the box in Yahtzee's review. If this was a thread specifically about Spec Ops you may have a point. But it's not, so what you just wrote is what is known in the vernacular as a shitpost.

 

[ArmorKingBaneGief]

Don't be an ass. The thread topic has nothing to do with Spec Ops save for a single clip of the box in Yahtzee's review. If this was a thread specifically about Spec Ops you may have a point. But it's not, so what you just wrote is what is known in the vernacular as a shitpost.

You're just jealous 'cause I'm holding a royal flush.

On topic, I notice that bows are starting to become popular in shooters. Farcry 3, Crysis 3, this latest Tomb Raider...there a reason for that, or is it just a massive coinkidink?

 

[antipunt]

I loved the game </3

*LALALAL I CANT HEAR YOU LALAL

haha, but at the same time, this was a very fair review. It just was, a lot of points were valid

 

[Baresark]

snip

Haven't played the game to be able to form my own opinion of it yet; but the jarring shift everyone talks about doesn't necessarily mean "there isn't an arc" so much as the arc is broken because the writers and game designers appeared to be working toward two different visions for the game.

Was the game supposed to be this movie-esque character focused thing, where the game design messed it up? or was a layout for the game type already in place when they decided to bring in some writers to try and do an intricate way to rationalize all the stuff in a way where a new version of the character can get away with it?

Did popular backlash against perceptions of linearity (you need a degree of linearity and restriction for structured, well-paced, planned story-telling; giving the player more freedom is incompatible and increases the need for more abstract narrative ideas) and perceived downgrading of the character's "power" lead to hasty back-pedalling that compromised the overall product?

From a story perspective, would we have ended up with something quite a bit better if the game design had played in line with the writer direction and they were able to just do their thing with proper pacing for a transition within the character arc?

Writing for a video game can be a lot more difficult than it seems, because the instances where the story takes and maintains shape before the game design rather than vice versa, is comparatively a lot more rare.

Well, to be fair about it, it's not like she was the same character leaving the game as entering the game, so there technically was an arc. The issue is that it's not an "arc" to speak of, as in it isn't a gentle sloping curve with a series of events that show the gradual change of the character to the new character. It's more like a switch gets flipped. One moment she is a frail little creature, the next she is a killing machine. And that is completely disconnected from the gameplay. She will be frail and unsure of herself in a cut scene and need the support characters to assure her she is quite capable of doing it, then 10 seconds later she is shot gunning her way through barriers and sniping enemies with a bow. She will however, at one particular moment in the game, decide that she is a new character, and I'll spare you the spoiler as to when that happens.

I also agree that some degree of linearity is necessary. I also did not feel that the game was overly linear. The areas aren't huge by any stretch, but you can go back to old locations to find treasure and what not from any base camp. I thought the game was honestly very good, the gameplay was solid. The story was one of the main focuses of the game according the developer, but I don't buy it. It wasn't bad, but it was honestly just kind of derivative and cliched. Lara wasn't this compelling character they sold her to be. Also, the arc was non existent, as I explained above.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I also agree that some degree of linearity is necessary. I also did not feel that the game was overly linear. The areas aren't huge by any stretch, but you can go back to old locations to find treasure and what not from any base camp..

I can't believe anyone who got themselves involved in the story actually did that. For me, the momentum was one of the story's only strengths, and stopping to raid tombs, read historical information and level up went totally against that. It's like someone penned the story and then someone completely different and on the other side of the world came up with the gameplay: someone schooled in all the modern trends in FPS and action games.

You've got in the story this adrenaline pumping Bruce Willis style rush from A to B and then because it's a modern game you have to have the xp gain for skill points, the optional quests and open-world backtracking, the bonus information and easter eggs. All which serve only to detract from the main story, in the same way a series of intermissions in an action movie would.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

Ah, "I Spit on your Grave," what a fine movie. So fine it deserved a modern remake. I can't tell which generation's pulp sexual assaults I find more gratuitous.

I thank you Yahtzee for bringing the comparison to my attention, that is exactly what this game reminds me of. Character building.... but not really.

This sounds like another of those confounded open world games. The last one of those I enjoyed was Just Cause 2, and it'll probably stay that way for some time.

 

[Baresark]

I also agree that some degree of linearity is necessary. I also did not feel that the game was overly linear. The areas aren't huge by any stretch, but you can go back to old locations to find treasure and what not from any base camp..

I can't believe anyone who got themselves involved in the story actually did that. For me, the momentum was one of the story's only strengths, and stopping to raid tombs, read historical information and level up went totally against that. It's like someone penned the story and then someone completely different and on the other side of the world came up with the gameplay: someone schooled in all the modern trends in FPS and action games.

You've got in the story this adrenaline pumping Bruce Willis style rush from A to B and then because it's a modern game you have to have the xp gain for skill points, the optional quests and open-world backtracking, the bonus information and easter eggs. All which serve only to detract from the main story, in the same way a series of intermissions in an action movie would.

I should clarify: it was an option, but I didn't do it, haha. It was nice if you wanted to go back after the fact but I basically abandon sections that I was passed. In the middle of a section I would look around for treasure and "tombs", but once i was past that area I didn't go back. There was no reason to. Basically, as soon as you beat it, you might as well uninstall it because there is no reason to go back.

 

[Starker]

I really liked Spec Ops but I feel it would've made its point a little better if you could actually turn around and leave like you were supposed to at any point.

Do the other modern milsims give you the option? You are doing horrific things, but the games say it's all for the best, because it's the way to proceed. Now you have the option to witness up close and personal one of these situations where things didn't turn out well. It's showing you there's a disconnect between the things that you do in games and what they are portrayed as.

Spoiler

It's no wonder Captain Wanker goes mad. Any sane person would. But he really doesn't have a choice... there's an uncaring unfeeling force driving him forward no matter what. He also want's to believe everything he does has some kind of purpose and that it turns out well. But there is no mission for him there. It's a lot like real life, really.

The game asks these questions not only on the personal level, but also on a wider cultural level. What kind of culture is it that thinks gunning people down or sneaking up to a bloke and slitting his throat is jolly good fun? Soldiers are lauded as heroes, but those that come back from "action" more often than not aren't inclined to talk about what they did or saw.

 

[likalaruku]

That's what I like about Escapist forums. People here can handle criticism of games they like maturely. Upload this to youtube & the bulk of comments will be death threats & two trolls drowing out everyone's comments by insulting eachother's mothers back & forth.

I just saw "I Spit On Your Grave" recently, so it's neat to get that reference.

Cinema Snob fan?

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

[the spec ops PC] decides to use the white phosphorous!

Eh? No he doesn't. It's not optional. Unless you count "stop playing the game" as an option. But then TR has that option too.

 

[Voulan]

I thought the whole point was that she's been forced to develop in an extreme circumstance, to the point that it's almost horrifying the lengths she'll go to succeed and save everyone. "It's amazing how easy it is."

Anyway, I disagree with Yahtzee on this one, which I'll note I have done in the past. Just because he says one thing does not make him an unquestionable god with infinite knowledge on everything.

Also, thanks for the Far Cry 3 spoilers.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Captain Walker (i.e. me) didn't decide to use white phosphorus. The developers forced us to use it.

According to them, "you could have just stopped playing the game". Which is technically true. But nobody stops following a story they got invested in just because they can see it will end up going horrible places, so the devs are little more then pretentious wankers.

Anyhoo.
Almost forgot how good Yahtzee's skill with words was. There's probably a reason I've yet to miss a ZP episode.

Truth.

I keep getting quoted by pretentious fucks who conveniently forget that the game asks me to make moral choices throughout the rest of the story. So not only is the game a badly outdated and poorly designed, bland, unoriginal waste of time, it also is inconsistent with it's primary theme's; Is the game about Walker, or is it a critique of the player?

There's no reason it can't be both, but the game is designed in such a way, that it can only be one or the other.