
Tomb Raider and the Fall of Core Design - prajjwal
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/it-felt-like-robbery-tomb-raider-and-the-fall-of-core-design/
======
__david__
I have to say that Crystal Dynamics just killed it with the latest Tomb Raider
reboot. I had written off the whole series as a cash cow churning out title
after title of boring sequel.

But I tried the 2013 reboot and it hit all the right notes with me. I rarely
play games to full 100% completion, but I played Tomb Raider 2013 until I had
found _everything_ (all collectables, etc). It's really a great game.

~~~
mehhhhhhh
Did you play the original?

You probably liked the reboot because it is aims for the lowest common
denominator( as most AAA games today do ). It is made to be really easy to
play, since the obligation to keep the player playing, takes priority over
gameplay.

The goal is to prevent player getting stuck by Any Means Necessary; keep them
always occupied so they don't get frustrated and quit. For example:

You always now where to go thanks to the always present directions and the
minimap, quick-time events replace sequences where skill mattered, there is a
tutorial for everything, treasures and trinkets keep players, who have hoarder
inclinations, occupied.

The original has None of Those. You were presented with a level and that was
the obstacle. The satisfaction was deeper, you felt good because you actually
had to suffer and persevere and choose to not quit. When you finally you
solved the level you really accomplished something.

~~~
sliverstorm
It's fun to be challenged in skill, in interesting fights or puzzles. But
getting lost or not knowing where to go all the time, that's just a time-
waster. Like the whole category of "fetch" quests.

Especially when you quit a game for a week, and come back having forgotten the
map and your latest goal.

If you make a dungeon crawler for the express purpose of making a dungeon
crawler (Grimrock?) it can be fun to lack directions, have no minimap, take
notes, draw maps by hand... but not every game means to be like that, and it
isn't the only valid way to make a game.

Sometimes the "on-rails" approach is actually the most fitting. Mirror's Edge,
anyone? The best part of that game was getting into a groove and feeling the
flow as you dash through levels. "The grind" is antithetical to the point of
the game.

Remember, it's just bits- games are for enjoyment. Suffering isn't the point
(unless that's what you enjoy)

~~~
restalis
"Suffering isn't the point (unless that's what you enjoy)"

I don't think it was about suffering, as it was about how challenging it is.
Think about other (non-gaming) experiences. The best are the challenging ones,
that require your full attention. Games work the same way, and on the other
end are those that hold your hand and make you sleep or quit before a tough
game will.

------
venomsnake
Good thing - due to kickstarter and steam we are slowly returning to the
golden days - all the best games of the last few years (not the most polished,
just the best) are not AAA blockbusters. Outside of AAA we see a lot of new
properties, no sequels, innovation and risk taking.

Also what are doing on HN instead of plowing trough Pillars of Eternity ...

~~~
bshimmin
For anyone else struggling to work out what "AAA" stands for, apparently it's
just "triple A" (like batteries):
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_%28game_industry%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_%28game_industry%29)

~~~
danmaz74
I would say, more like credit rating than like batteries :)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_credit_rating](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_credit_rating)

~~~
acheron
Ohh, I suppose that makes more sense than what I always think of, which is
minor league baseball. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-
A_%28baseball%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-A_%28baseball%29)

------
jds375
"Don't fuck up the culture" rings true here.

