I
am old enough to have played Tomb Raider when it first came
out on the PS1. One of the few games I invested myself in (at the
time) to complete, I loved the eerie atmosphere of the caves and
loved even more working through the puzzles. I would say the game
gave off a proper Indiana Jones, tomb raiding feel that defined Lara
Croft and her world. Fast forward twenty years to the release of
Tomb Raider (2013). While certainly technically and
graphically enhanced, the game only partially echoed the original.
Revamped for the modern Assassin’s Creed/Uncharted audience,
Crystal Dynamics opted for a faster-paced, story-driven,
action-adventure game. There were puzzles, but they were
complementary rather than necessary. I would still say the
transition was successful, however. More sophisticated than
Uncharted and less convoluted than Assassin’s Creed, Tomb Raider
(2013) held a nice balance across its elements that made for a fun,
enjoyable gaming experience—so much so I invested in the follow up,
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2015).
Where
Tomb Raider (2013) aimed to be the origin story of how Lara
Croft changed from university student to fledgling tomb
taider, Rise of the Tomb Raider aims to be… I don’t know
what to write here. I suppose it aims to be the next logical step:
Lara’s digging into her father’s shadowy past as an explorer and
adventurer, finding more about the mysterious ‘holy grail’ he
sought, and moving her closer to the Tomb Raider (sound the
gong) we are familiar with. The reason I say I’m not 100% sure
what to write is that Rise of the Tomb Raider’s storyline is
weak. I understand faceless enemies are the norm in video games, but
Trinity and its minions are too many degrees separated from Lara’s
relatively human story to be remotely relatable. (The treasure
hunters in the original Tomb Raider still seem the most
logical competition.) Secondly, there were too many times I felt I
was just going through the action/adventure motions of uncovering
secrets, being captured, discovering numinous objects, escaping,
etc., etc. It was as if the story’s pieces lacked the proper setup
to allow me to suspend my disbelief. And thirdly the storyline felt
vanilla—like one I had seen or read several times before. (In
fact, I believe Uncharted 2’s storyline may have been nearly
identical…) There were few truly unique details or signature
moments to distinguish it. Things evolve exactly as expected, no
surprises. As story is one of the primary reasons to play the game,
around the halfway point I was struggling to remain engaged.
Adding
to the uncertain feeling is that I never bought the idea of Siberia
as a place where ancient societies build kingdoms to hide their
fantastical secrets. It’s a flat, snowy land with endless, endless
miles of forest—nothing is happening there. But not so in the
game. Save a few of the opening scenes, gameplay felt like a generic
ice kingdom in the Himalayas or Andes (given the amount of climbing
Lara is doing, especially) versus the flat forest steppes of Siberia.
And the mix of Greek, Monogolian, and Russian influences just didn’t
fit together into a comprehensive package. Tomb Raider (2013)
did a better job combining its story and setting.
As
mentioned, one thing I enjoyed about the revamped Tomb Raider
in 2013 was its balance. Not as simple as Uncharted’s
one-gun-at-a-time bang-bang-bang and not as complicated as
many games’ weapon wheels, Crystal Dynamics limited Lara to four
weapons mapped to the d-pad. When running, jumping, climbing, etc.,
she was likewise able to interact with her environment in more
sophisticated ways than Nathan Drake, which made the traversal
sections more interesting, yet not in the button-wrangling way most
fighting games require. And lastly, there were collectibles in the
game, but not a shit-ton like in many open world titles. Yes, nicely
balanced. Rise of the Tomb Raider I do not believe is as
nicely balanced. Looking more toward an open-world experience yet
not committed to it, the number of items is vastly increased, many
(most?) of which have little bearing on actual gameplay. Animals,
branches, bird nests, and other natural resources are a particular
source of dismay. Crystal Dynamics try to present Lara as a
“wilderness survivor” character, and accordingly these resources
are needed to “survive”—to upgrade weapons and craft
ammunition. They are found scattered around the game’s
environment, but unfortunately can also be looted from enemies. In
other words, I very quickly gave up scavenging when I learned I was
getting all the items I needed looting baddies, which in turn
destroyed the survivor motif developers were going for. What’s the
point of running around collecting resources in nature when I just
need to participate in the main storyline and will get them anyway…
The
other aspect of open-world gaming less successfully implemented is
collectibles. This can be encapsulated in the fact that, upon
finishing the main game my overall completion percentage showed only
59%—which represents to me how wishy-washy the game’s developers
were in deciding: is it open world or linear? To be clear, there are
no side-quests to flesh out this remaining 41%, only a few optional
tomb puzzles, two small expansion packs, and a shit-ton of
collectibles that are just that: things lying around waiting to be
found and not integrated with story. And yet the focus of the game
is clearly story…
I’ve
been critical thus far, which is wholly unfair to Crystal Dynamics.
Firstly, gameplay is smooth and fluid. Guiding Lara through the
environments is an easy, intuitive experience that keeps pacing quick
and engaging for the player; they can always push the storyline, head
on. On top of this, developers gave Lara new skills not available in
the 2013 game. Most of these are revealed as the story evolves, so
best left for the potential player to discover. I will only say that
they add interesting dynamics to traversal, even if some are limited
in use. Secondly, production, like in Tomb Raider (2013), is
great. I encountered zero glitches or bugs, the graphics and sound
are as good any other top-tier PS4 game on the market, and the blend
of action, puzzling, cut scenes, etc. has all been planned, collated,
and edited extremely well. The story is indeed weak, but it has been
implemented in game form, excellently. The last thing Rise
does well—even better than Tomb Raider (2013)—is puzzles.
In Tomb Raider (2013) they were not very challenging, more
distractions. With Rise, puzzles were implemented that
require a fair amount of trial and error to get through, meaning the
level
of satisfaction is all the higher when solving them.
Due to the lack of
committal on behalf of Crystal Dynamics (open world or linear?) and
the generic storyline (how many times have I seen that before…), I
feel Rise of the Tomb Raider is a teeny, tiny step back from
Tomb Raider (2013). Gameplay, however, is fast and exciting,
graphics and sound are well done, the balance of controls, options,
and actions remains superb, and the puzzles are certainly more
interesting and challenging. The bottom line is: I will play Shadow
of the Tomb Raider (the third—and final?—game in the Tomb
Raider reboot series) someday.
No comments:
Post a Comment