Rating: 2 out of 3 Stars (why only 3 possible stars?)
Genre: Third Person Shooter; Sub-genre: Survival
ESRB: M (profanity, very high levels of gore and gritty visuals)
Estimated hours of gameplay (thorough play/quick play): 12/8
Developer: Crystal Dynamics
Sometimes the difference between a good game and a great game is incredibly slight. Before I was even done with my playthrough, I was already thinking of things that would have improved the game. I'm sure many other critics have as well, too, because they are kind of obvious. While certain things like "be as good as Uncharted" can be a tall order for any developer, the criticisms I have for this game are simpler. Although I would have loved if this game was as good as Uncharted, heh. Before I start, I should mention that I am not a fan of this franchise. I briefly played the first Tomb Raider for about 30 minutes. Probably still as a kid wandering around Wal-Mart's displays in their electronics section. I found it to be another case of a game that's victim to the clunkiness of the transition into 3D graphics. So I'll only be able to talk about this game by itself. What I do know, though, is that this game is about a thousand percent darker than the originals.
 |
| Tomb Raider or Slayer album cover art? |
Lara Croft is no longer a seasoned bad ass slayer-of-man-and-beast that she once was. At least she isn't for the first few seconds of the game. Both the character and the player adapt to becoming killing machines in about as much time as it will take one to get accustomed to the controls and physics of the game. That sounds like a good thing, and it definitely is good because a game should be understandable, but it does detract from the story. Couple her innocence with the fact that she is a tiny, TINY girl and it just elicits laughter when I watch some of the cutscenes. The reason this is a problem is because this game is so serious. If it were silly like the other ones? Sure, it's fine that a 5'2" skinny teenage girl (early 20's?) can overpower a six foot, burly, psychotic killer MAN. For all the grit and realism the game builds, some wacky action hero scene shows up and destroys the mood. This is consistent with the gameplay. By that I mean the gameplay is inconsistent. At first glance it seems like scavenging, exploration, and problem solving might be an important factor in a survival game. But almost immediately the game turns into a normal action game. I feel this way because the exploration and skill ups are so capricious in depth and length. Most skills and upgrades come in two flavors: "more damage" and "things you can already do but are now highlighted." And there's no decisions to be made. If you are diligent, you can just buy everything. And how does she turn a WWII submachine gun into an AK47? That is some Army of Darkness level silliness right there. Exploration devolves into finding collectables and backtracking. Each "zone" is only as big as a standard video game level, just less linear.
 |
| When I think "gritty realism," scenes from Army of Darkness come to mind. CLEARLY. |
So what. So it's another dumb video game after all. I guess I'll just have to live with that. I shouldn't question the logic of the game so long as it's fun, right? Right. But backtracking isn't fun. Especially when strange respawn bugs occur for doing so (I once killed the same guy three times in a row because he kept popping into existence right in front of me!). Why can't I just access all these sub-areas right away? Why must I come back once I have a late-game upgrade? Because they're just beefing up the gameplay hours. Okay, so maybe it's my fault for being thorough then. I should just play the game straight through. Well, then I'm just doing another video game story where the player character keeps surviving explosions and giant falls in order to uncover some absurd megalomaniac's plan to rule the world with his small army and easily-defeated-by-machine-gun magic powers. My point is this game is confused. It sold me on the idea of Lara Croft as a survivor but then it gave me "Uncharted with more backtracking and less fun." But really I'm more disappointed than anything. It's still a good game and a successful reboot.
 |
| Lara's friends are quite alright with her descent into becoming a murderbot. |
One last thing: apparently there's a multiplayer mode! I really had no idea or expectation for such a thing in this game. And the design of it is in the same thought process as me, which I'd describe as: "Huh? Sure, whatever." It's not the worst tacked-on head-to-head mode I've seen recently. That title goes to Spec Ops: The Line. But it definitely isn't as stellar as Fall of Cybertron. There are two factions to play as, and they are different from one another in ways that are stupid and pointless. One side are the "Survivors" (or "Dorks", which is what I call them) and the other are the Solarii (who I call the "Bad Guys" or "Psychos"). A good example of these bemusing changes is that the Dorks start with submachine guns while the Psychos use assault rifles. Huh? And the matches have rounds and respawn timers for no reason. I can understand in a game mode where one side defends and the other attacks that you could switch back and forth, but why have that in team deathmatch or free-for-all? It just makes the game take longer and adds more loadscreen time to wait through. Guys, just give us a good ~10 minute deathmatch. The spawning uses bases rather than random locations, so that means an uneven match will result in indefinite camping. That coupled with powerful late-level upgrades makes this game very unfriendly to newcomers. There's also feats and setbacks, which are only explained if you browse around a few menus. Those are killstreaks and deathstreaks... important! Lastly, no icons come up when you hit resistant enemies (there are perks that make you take less damage from things like bullets... bullets for crying out loud!) so that pretty much sums up how freaking bewildering these matchs can be with all these concepts flying at the player to learn and figure out. It's still a touch unique and interesting, so if you want to try it my advice is to do so sooner rather than later. I doubt people will play enough to keep the servers full for too long.
 |
| Every game should have multiplayer... apparently. |
Conclusion:
Lara Croft is still a sexy, squeaking, action hero. If you want to see her in a decent action game with triple A graphics, go right ahead. You'll have a good enough time. If you want a stealth game with exploration and survival, well... I've been meaning to play that Farcry 3 game. I'll get back to you on that.
Bonus note:
Hey, Crystal Dynamics! I can't change the buttons to your game! That's fine and all, so long as you're willing to piss people off when you make changes from the norm. It's mostly fine in single player, but in multiplayer you've screwed up royally. Clicking the left stick and holding it to switch shoulders? B to run? What is this?! Here's what you do:
-Running and aiming are exclusive. So there is no reason you can't put sprint on clicking the left stick. Just make aiming transform the button to "switch shoulder." Also, don't require the player to hold that click down to run continually. That is kinda hard to do. One can stop running by easing off from pushing forward.
-B is now crouch.
-Aiming and melee are also exclusive. There is no reason clicking the right stick can't be melee. When aiming, this is now transformed to zoom.
-Second option! There is no hipfire in this game. When not aiming, R trigger could become melee. Just like Dead Space.
-Either way, Y is now switch weapon.
How easy are these changes? How much less clunky does this make your multiplayer? Come on!
No comments:
Post a Comment