Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

The original Tomb Raider, its remake, and the loss of subtlety

Lemming42

Arcane
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,424
Location
The Satellite Of Love
That all said, I despise modern everyman heroes because I *don't* think even the average Millennial is as weak-knee'd as hollywood likes to assume. Especially outside of the middle-class Liberal bubble, most people lead lives with misery and death that doesn't make them collapse at the sight of a dead body.

Disability notwithstanding, I've lived a fairly standard Mid-Class American life, yet in the few instances where my life was threatened and I was forced into a do-or-die situation I didn't vomit, or start sobbing or lose hope. I swore a lot, I absolutely said funny no-no-words mom wouldn't be proud of, but I had my shit together.
This is interesting. Now that you mention it, I've been mugged at knifepoint twice and on both occasions I remember being almost totally calm in a way that I'm not in regular life, and almost finding it kind of funny. First time it happened I found myself ignoring the guy's yelling and instead just thought "he really looks like someone but I can't figure out who" (realised later he looked like some kind of inbred Al Pacino body double).

It's especially dumb in a lot of these games because, if I remember TR2013 right, nu-Lara is still going "uguuguhh I'm scared it's too hard" for several hours even after she's picked up an assault rifle and killed like a hundred and fifty mooks. Surely after the first big shootout you'd be eerily tranquil, even if only as some kind of trauma response or whatever. I think she even keeps flouncing about and panicking even after her not-girlfriend is placed in mortal danger, which you'd think would be the ultimate catalyst to stop panicking and start moving forward with unshakable focus, especially since she's armed to the teeth by that point. Same for Amicia, the hero of Plague Tale; she's killed more people than AIDS and has been placed in more lethal situations than Johnny Knoxville but somehow she still can't handle it.

Weirdly, I feel like these type of "normal person suddenly placed into a life-or-death situation" plots in videogames are best served by a silent protagonist - the Hacker from System Shock, Gordon Freeman from Half-Life, Gina/849 from Unreal, all somehow feel much more relatable and sympathetic to me than modern movie-like videogame protagonists, despite having no characterisation, never saying a word, and being represented entirely by a viewmodel of a gun.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,455
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
This whole notion of "equality" sadly prevents proper studies from being conducted. It would be really interesting to examine which games have the highest percentage of female fans and then analyze the types of gameplay those games have to find out what female players are attracted to gameplay-wise.
There have been a handful of studies examining disparities in videogame intensity and genre preference by gender, as with the 2017 Quantic Foundry study already posted several times on the Codex:

2yimcr.png


Although the (sub)genre names and definitions used in this survey are debatable, this study does clearly demonstrate that certain genres are skewed heavily male (sports, shooters, racing, strategy, tactics), while the genres with the highest proportion of women are casual (match 3, family/farming sim, casual puzzle, walking simulators, interactive drama).

There was also a 2013 survey showing that female college students spend far less time playing games than male college students; even if those not playing videogames are excluded, the distribution for average time spent playing would be far lower for women than men:
gduzue.png

Yeah but it would be interesting to actually analyze the gameplay elements properly, and which kinds of games attract the creative types (see Thief and Tomb Raider's big amount of female level designers).

Mobile games must be ignored for the study to be of any value :M
 
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
426
All because of technical limitations.
IMO the main reason of the golden era (except of what Glop_dweller wrote) was the fact that the devs came from different backgrounds, but mostly academic / nerd mix. They grew up reading books, watching old and new movies, reading comics, playing tabletop games, etc. These people knew things like The Odyssey, Moby Dick, Citizen Kane, X-men, etc. "firsthand" - they experienced those in their proper, original medium.

Unfortunately newshit devs (and millenials / zoomers in general) have been fed only with "second-hand" cultural artifacts. They know cultural "tropes" only as memes, concepts used in video games and Disney adaptations. Hence the constant recycling and lack of originality. These people can only "remake" things (for example games), they can't "make" new ones.

So, original TR devs (Core Design) wanted to make "Indiana Jones game, but with a chick, recreating Montezuma's Revenge feel, but in 3D, with some levels in Egypt, etc." - mixing inspirations from different media. On the other hand, later devs (Crystal Dynamics) just wanted to make "Prince of Persia - Sands of Time, only with Lara". They were inspired only by other computer games.
I'd expand on this and argue that the increasing professionalisation of creative industries is to blame.

People now train to be movie directors or game designers like people train to be doctors or engineers i.e. they do degrees. Broadly they learn about a defined curriculum and are tested on their ability to retain that information. This works for normal professions because they have all have (mostly) objective standards of competence required to work in that field. It doesn't work in creative industry because you can't teach artistic inspiration. Modern creatives are all likely taught and tested on certain 'correct' ways of moving a camera or designing a progression system with the ever looming threat of punitive failure on any deviation. This is then compounded when they enter the corporate world where success is defined solely by the amount of profit you extract. Hence the torrent of technically competent risk-averse cultural sludge we all drown in.

Having spent much of my life around university-educated professionals I'd also add that they tend to be artistically illiterate. If they do have pretensions towards a cultural sensibility it'll be the prestige midwit drivel du jour recommended by the glossy magazine in a legacy newspaper. Studying to enter a specific field in your teenage years and into young adulthood is mentally all consuming. Doesn't leave much time to engage in depth with any outside interests or have interesting life experiences that might form the basis of a creative spark.
 
Last edited:

Louis_Cypher

Arcane
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
1,631
Although it's a bit different from examples like Tomb Raider 1, with it's atmospheric environmental storytelling of an original world, I was thinking about games that capture the specific environmental 'feel' and 'tone' of a popular pre-existing franchise. This used to be a special skill of developers like LucasArts, Interplay and Microprose. In the 1990s, there were a number of Star Trek and Star Wars games, that really nailed the subtle atmosphere, appeal and identity of those franchises. This was accomplished using immersive sound design, suggestive level design, franchise theme music, solid fandom understanding of how institutions or people might communicate and behave within those universes, and wide-eyed desire to explore outside the theme park inside those settings.

Star Wars: Dark Forces 1 (1995) | Star Wars: Dark Forces 2 (1997)



I think the Codex is well aware of how good the sound design is in LucasArts games like Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight (wind howling in Nar Shaddaa's cavernous megacity, as you walk some lonely skyscraper support beam, occasional ships zooming distantly), but even the blocky level work in DF1 and DF2 suggested the wider ways in which a fictional civilization operated; something as simple as traversing Sulon's water management system, which is appropriatly monolithic and archaic (like some huge brutalist Orwellian Roman aquaduct system; very Star Wars). Often there were no guard rails on a narrow walkway; you 99% wouldn't fall off, but the possibility existed; nowadays the temptation might be a 'balancing minigame' or scripted scene or something, removing that verisimilitude.

wxB6KWQ.png


They just let you cross the bridge with that subtle fear of falling off; no scripted 'platform giving way', or 'enemies appearing', no rail to prevent out-of-bounds death. It's just a little thing, extending the logic of life-and-death in this world; similar to Tomb Raider's levels not fore-warning that a T-Rex is going to appear, and allowing normal weapons to kill it. It's also the 'fairness' that Dark Souls fans talk about; what kills NPCs, kills you the same.

Star Trek: Generations (1997) | Star Trek: Klingon Honor Guard (1998)



In Star Trek: Generations (an almost forgotton FPS, with item management, star travel, and space battles from 1997), you have items that are thoroughly situated in the internal logic of the setting, such as Klingon and Romulan hyposprays within storage boxes on their planets, replicators serving actual food, including each species ethnic food, cast dialogue that accurately resembles the series, and level design that tells pretty interesting things about the history of the planetary environment. Subsequent Star Trek: Klingon Honor Guard, also by MicroProse, also did a good job in the Unreal engine, making you feel like an alien soldier, even if the middle of the campaign dragged sometimes. I don't think a single human appeared in KHG, because it was so comitted to showing Klingon life.



Aliens versus Predator (2000)

Another example that comes to mind is how satisfying playing the Alien or Predator was in Aliens versus Predator, the 1999 classic.



Nowaways you very rarely, if ever, get that kind of subtle dedication or attention to detail to an existing franchise, with the media often not appreciating the novelty in rare cases where it happens, while players do. The usual explaiantion is that developers need to broaden or dumb down something into a cameo-filled PowerPoint presentation of what their setting is, but I think audiences appreciate depth. In general, a short superificial experience entertains throwaway viewers for a few hours, but depth creates long-term loyalty that pays dividends across time.

Terminator: Resistance (2019)



One exception I came across last year, was Terminator: Resistance from 2019. It's a more slow paced contemplative game, where you have time to prepare pipe bombs, upgrade items, etc, before moving in on a target of military value to the Resistance. They gleefully use the 'Terminator theme' during important moments. A DLC has you take control of a T-800, who has the red digital vision seen in the films, analyses a human M-16 rifle in that utterly pragmatic way seen during the gun store scene in T1; I really appreciate things like that.

DjZ6vEp.png


You can certainly tell when something is made from genuine love, rather than by corporate slaves robbed of self-respect.

In each case, there was no desire to 'update' anachronisms from the TV shows or movies. Would a sophisticated cybernetic killing machine really see a DOS-style cursor, or a HUD-like display showing target data in the English language? Don't care! It's what the movies showed, and it was badass. The point was to inhabit the authentic world as it was originally presented. Fidelity mattered above all else. I think some franchises made a mistake in recent years by not simply taking the technologies of their era, as a kind of trademark alternate history aesthetic (as Star Wars does with it's gleefully anarchonistic analogue computers, guns, etc, representing a society that just manifested along different lines to us).
 
Last edited:

The Dopamine Cleric

Prospernaut
Shitposter
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
1,162
I was talking to someone on sven about Dino Crisis being one of my favorites and he complained about the camera and the controls, obviously a zoomer. Mother fucker it's PS1! What the fuck do you expect?! Also, the point isn't to be gears of war it's to be its own thing... a survival horror game.

There's no other genre/game that is as intense as trying to dodge velociraptors in a small maze with no ammo and blocking them off with laser fences. Also, the puzzles are all great. The atmosphere is great. The story is cheesy 80's great. It's fuckin great, you ingrates.
 

Bigg Boss

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
7,528
Well the level design in that one was not the best but it was better than most shit coming out now that is called survival horror. Besides tank controls are intentional so you are not like in RE5 with Sheva running around roundhouse kicking niggers off buildings.
 

Faarbaute

Arbiter
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
790
It's hard to know exactly what motivates people, but I'm reminded of the time I read something to the effect that Blizzard wouldn't be remastering their older titles, such as Warcraft I & II, because according to them, those games just aren't that fun anymore. In other words, they think their old games suck.

I think this is a prevailing attitude, even amongst developers who have themselves been involved with a game previously. Not to mention some retarded newcomer who has no idea about games beyond what's trending right now.

They no longer appreciate, or never did appreciate, what made a particular game good in the first place. So of course, given the opportunity or God forbid, they don't even really want to do it, but they are being pressured to do it, they are going to try to make the game more in line with their current sensibilities.
 

Pound Meat

Prophet
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
4,748
Location
Flavortown
As annoying as the changes in Anniversary were it was still fun to play (I have three versions of it), and for years fans were practically begging for remakes of the remaining Core games. After reading this thread I wonder if CD was embarrassed by the old games (too problematic even in the late 2000s) and only bothered with the first one because they reused Natla in Legend. (She went out like a punk btw.)

I can't imagine how bad the Amazon games are going to be.
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
8,974
Location
Italy
Faarbaute some games are true immortal masterpieces, some other are just sons of their time. vanilla rts like warcrafts suck, always sucked, will always suck, they were just reskinned dune 2 with less interesting lore but sold a lot because fantasy is easier to digest to the masses because they don't have to explain anything, "it just magics" so it appeals much more to less prepared, less intelligent apes. alright, i digress, but you get my point.
besides, blizzard proved times and times again that they could shit down their fanboys' throats and they'd devour it all and call it the finest chocolate ever, so i don't see the issue. most probably they just can't be arsed.
 

Faarbaute

Arbiter
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
790
Faarbaute some games are true immortal masterpieces, some other are just sons of their time. vanilla rts like warcrafts suck, always sucked, will always suck, they were just reskinned dune 2 with less interesting lore but sold a lot because fantasy is easier to digest to the masses because they don't have to explain anything, "it just magics" so it appeals much more to less prepared, less intelligent apes. alright, i digress, but you get my point.
besides, blizzard proved times and times again that they could shit down their fanboys' throats and they'd devour it all and call it the finest chocolate ever, so i don't see the issue. most probably they just can't be arsed.
Be that as it may, you have to admit how easily the same could be said for just about any old game, when it comes to remastering or doing spiritual successors and the like.

What you wrote might very well have been the rationale behind the Tomb Raider remake JarlFrank was talking about in the OP.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,455
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
It's good that they won't be remastering their old titles because they would do a horrible job at it due to their disrespect for the originals.

That said, back when I played Warcraft 1 and 2 I didn't get the hype around them. I played them after Age of Empires and Myth, so in comparison they fell flat, and even if you don't have better RTS to compare them to, the mission design was pretty meh most of the time especially in the early missions.
 

Ravielsk

Magister
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Messages
1,590
I have to repeat myself here but I personally think that it all stems for the overwhelming levels of dishonesty that are common in modern discourse. I have very much noticed how older people tend to be much more blunt with the feedback to a point where it might seem rude. Whether it was an older teacher in my translation studies or a driving instructor they were always far more willing and ready to call a shit tier performance shit(and mean it). Initially its all very discouraging but there is no other way to get better at something if you never acknowledge your actual skill level. This is also something I have seen mimicked in discourse surrounding games. People used to to call out shit when they saw it. Hell entire online carriers were built on just being honest about certain things being pieces of shit(Nostalgia critic, Spoony, Phelous etc.).

These days however even supposed "edgy and hardcore" guys have to open up with some sort of disclaimer that goes along the lines of "nothing I say is meant earnestly and can be safely ignored" to shield everyone from the potential emotional damage their "unfiltered" opinion might cause. The end result is that the informational flows surrounding any piece of media are effectively poisoned from the start by bad-will or ignorant actors who cannot be called out under any circumstance as to not cause them some nebulous amount of harm.

One example that especially sticks out in my mind is my former room mate who professed himself as a great RPG fan but when I asked him about his favorite games it turned out the he only ever played Mass Effect 1-2 and WoW(Cataclysm to be precise) and he did not even really like the first Mass Effect but was certain that the third one was just misunderstood. So his entire opinion about RPGs was shaped by two games that barely qualify as RPG lite and the one closest to an RPG experience he disliked. Its like a level one character insisting they already hit the levelcap and turning off EXP gains because the pop up annoys them. Include a guy like that or couple thousand into a discourse about anything and do you think you will get? Or better yet imagine him in a creative role and ask yourself what will he create?

Yet, guys like my former roommate are not the exception but the norm these days. Its a cultural problem as before not only was it not so easy to participate in discourse about... well actually anything without actively trying and on top of that people had the general decency to not call themselves "fans" simply because they like one piece of media. Nobody who rented out a VHS of Wrath of Khan back in the 90s called themselves a "Trekky" because they found the movie mildly entertaining but its absolutely normal these days to find people who have nothing but disdain for anything made before 2015 calling themselves "geeks" and acting like they were the ones who actually came up with the gate in Baldur's Gate.
 
Last edited:

Faarbaute

Arbiter
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
790
Blizzard wouldn't be remastering their older titles, such as Warcraft I & II, because according to them, those games just aren't that fun anymore. In other words, they think their old games suck
In case of Warcraft 1 and 2 blizzard is right. They are super primitive and unfun to play for varienty of reasons from gfx, ui, extreme unit selection limit to pathfinding, mission design and "flatness" of maps. And more.
You have to be an edgelord to think otherwise.
Proper remaster would need to change 100% of game, what's the point of doing such remaster when you can create new game instead?
:philosoraptor:
 

Lucumo

Educated
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
745
That said, back when I played Warcraft 1 and 2 I didn't get the hype around them.
The Command & Conquer series was better anyway and it sold tons in Germany while Warcraft (1&2) did not so much. It was stronger in the US. You can basically compare the situation to Sierra and LucasArts where Sierra was super popular in the US but outside not that much while LucasArts killed it in Europe (and especially in Germany).
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
8,974
Location
Italy
These days however even supposed "edgy and hardcore" guys have to open up with some sort of disclaimer that goes along the lines of "nothing I say is meant earnestly and can be safely ignored" to shield everyone from the potential emotional damage their "unfiltered" opinion might cause. The end result is that the informational flows surrounding any piece of media are effectively poisoned from the start by bad-will or ignorant actors who cannot be called out under any circumstance as to not cause them some nebulous amount of harm.
when my "career" began i got put in charge of paradox games (mostly because others hadn't the slightest idea how they worked, a competitor once reviewed victoria "i've been told it's a great game but i don't understand it. 60/100". literally.) and my first exchange with them has been "-i'm the captain now, i can't be bribed, i can't be bought, i'll call proper names, if this is a problem speak now. -we expect nothing less." and damn we both delivered. some crap i trashed *HARD*, that didn't stop me to get an interview with its ceo, in which the serious questions were about how terrible it is to release unfinished and bugged games followed by bucketloads of dlc, and the tone switch to funny was "who's the idiot who greenlit the aztec invasion?". no wonder once i left the whole field went completely to shit.
it feels to me like it happened yesterday, it's been almost 20 years now :|
 

Lucumo

Educated
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
745
when my "career" began i got put in charge of paradox games (mostly because others hadn't the slightest idea how they worked, a competitor once reviewed victoria "i've been told it's a great game but i don't understand it. 60/100". literally.) and my first exchange with them has been "-i'm the captain now, i can't be bribed, i can't be bought, i'll call proper names, if this is a problem speak now. -we expect nothing less." and damn we both delivered. some crap i trashed *HARD*, that didn't stop me to get an interview with its ceo, in which the serious questions were about how terrible it is to release unfinished and bugged games followed by bucketloads of dlc, and the tone switch to funny was "who's the idiot who greenlit the aztec invasion?". no wonder once i left the whole field went completely to shit.
it feels to me like it happened yesterday, it's been almost 20 years now :|
It always depends on the publisher. I've heard enough podcasts with former game journalists (magazines) who every now and then told an anecdote or two. So while one can maybe get away with trashing games from small and maybe medium-sized publishers, big ones may just blacklist you, meaning the competing magazines (and there were a lot) get access to pre-release versions, developer interviews, publishing material while you get nothing. Something like that is not really feasible, especially back in the day when the internet wasn't really widespread and when it was limited.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,892
I was talking to someone on sven about Dino Crisis being one of my favorites and he complained about the camera and the controls, obviously a zoomer. Mother fucker it's PS1! What the fuck do you expect?! Also, the point isn't to be gears of war it's to be its own thing... a survival horror game.

There's no other genre/game that is as intense as trying to dodge velociraptors in a small maze with no ammo and blocking them off with laser fences. Also, the puzzles are all great. The atmosphere is great. The story is cheesy 80's great. It's fuckin great, you ingrates.
I will never understand the Dino Crisis love. I played it for the first time in 2018, as a 90s gaming fanatic I had to check it out sooner or later. The gameplay is completely uninspired (Resident Evil but strip down everything, from weapon and enemy variety, inventory management, to most notably the level design, making it pretty linear), there is barely a plot, it's a very short game, it's in full 3D when all the good PS1 survival horrors were pre-rendered for good reason (only exception being silent hill which I give a pass to for a couple reasons)...
Yes overall it is far from the worst game ever, but it's really not special at all. When someone claims it's great I strongly question that individual's standards. Didn't play enough late 90s games most likely. Survival Horror had Resident Evil 1-3, Silent Hill, System Shock 2, Parasite Eve 2, Martian Gothic...it's just a boring ass dino game by comparison. Sure the T-Rex coming after you often in the first half is epic and velociraptors are cool, but the game needs some real substance, not just theatrics.
 
Last edited:

Lucumo

Educated
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
745
I will never understand the Dino Crisis love. I played it for the first time in 2018, as a 90s gaming fanatic I had to check it out sooner or later. The gameplay is completely uninspired (Resident Evil but strip down everything, from weapon and enemy variety, inventory management, to most notably the level design, making it pretty linear), there is barely a plot, it's a very short game, it's in full 3D when all the good PS1 survival horrors were pre-rendered for good reason (only exception being silent hill which I give a pass to for a couple reasons)...
Yes overall it is far from the worst game ever, but it's really not special at all. When someone claims it's great I strongly question that individual's standards. Didn't play enough late 90s games most likely. Survival Horror had Resident Evil 1-3, Silent Hill, System Shock 2, Parasite Eve 2, Martian Gothic...it's just a boring ass dino game by comparison. Sure the T-Rex coming after you often in the first half is epic and velociraptors are cool, but the game needs some real substance, not just theatrics.
Speaking of Resident Evil. How much is it a copy of Alone in the Dark (controls, system, graphic style/type, atmosphere)? All the horror games like that always get called "Resident Evil"-clone but Alone in the Dark basically never gets any recognition.
 

Semiurge

Cipher
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
6,557
Location
Asp Hole
You're making me do it.

tS5FRFk.png


I've played 1 and Last Revelation, never tried 2+3.

It's a pity that The Lost Artifact is now abandonware thanks to having been made by a no-name third party, the same thing happened to the mediocre expansion of Aliens vs Predator 2. It has never been released digitally by legal means, but apparently the retail copy works fine with the current crop of patches. For just six levels, they shouldn't have charged anything. The bonus levels for TR1 & 2 were thankfully free.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom