Tomb Raider - A Tarnished Legend 72
An anonymous reader writes "1UP.com has posted a fantastic piece on the Tomb Raider series that examines how the franchise has been tarnished over the past few years -- and questions whether Lara can still win back the hearts of gamers. What's especially amusing is the inclusion of GameRankings scores, demonstrating the series' consistent drop in quality (Tomb Raider 1 averaged an 89%, while the latest installment, Angel of Darkness, came in at 54%.)."
Tomb Raider used to be good? (Score:3, Interesting)
a good game would sell (Score:2, Interesting)
Certainly having a fanbase that already respects your series helps, but a good game would sell. There are enough review sources out there that word gets around when a game is worth buying.
Re:I second that. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you mean better than the VGA graphics of the original DOS and Playstation versions, then... you already can have that.
TR1 + VDMSound + DGVoodoo = high-res Tomb Raider on WinXP. The sound hiccups a bit, and I haven't figured out how to fix that yet, but otherwise it's great.
Re:Why are they not smarter by now (Score:2, Interesting)
Films are different - yes, technology has changed (VHS, DVD), but most homes have a VCR, and so they have the ability to pop in an old tape and appreciate it, even if certain parts of it (special effects, special features) are lacking. That's not even an option for many gamers to appreciate old games without skirting gray areas of legality (emulation) or having an old computer lying around. Game companies wanting to make a profit need to come out with stuff while it's hot, and sadly that results in many products being less than fully realized.
I actually liked AoD... (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't think Angel of Darkness was so bad, aside from the random dude popping up and the weak ending. However, seeing the teasers for Legend, I'm really looking forward to a new instalment coming out, maybe one with a bit of a new take on the same old same old.
Re:Why are they not smarter by now (Score:5, Interesting)
I know, once it's finished, it seems easy. So helpful people say "just do another thing like that one, only completely different". But it's not easy.
What happens is this:
1. Game company (or movie company, or car company or any other sort of company) makes a lot of things.
2. Most of the things they make are average, some are way below average. Consumers brand everything that is less than way above average as "sucks".
3. One or two turn out to be really good (way above average). The consumers like those ones.
4. The company tries to make more like the ones that turned out good (the sequels).
5. They make a lot of sequels.
6. Most of them suck. See (2).
By the way, the reasons consumers say that anything which isn't well above average "sucks" is simple: once they see the absolute best, they raise the bar, and want everything to be that good. Essentially, people want everything to be well above average, which is illogical, but nobody ever said people are logical.
As to the question about exploiting for the short term, that's not the idea. The ideas are:
1) You've got to ship something, or you go out of business. A crappy game (movie, car, etc.) released now is better than a perfect game never released.
2) You really don't know how popular it's going to be until you release it. People are fickle.
But I think that the main factor is the simple one: by simple math, most things are average or below. And most consumers are only excited by games that are well above average. So most consumers are going be disappointed a lot of the time.
Re:Oh gee I wonder why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Step 3: Where's the profit?
Heck, if it works for Electronic Arts, why can't it work for Tomb Raider? Hmmm, perhaps they are paying their employees too much and not working them hard enough...I must have a word with management...
Tomb Raider 1 was great (Score:3, Interesting)
I won't appoligize for the sequels though, they were just more of the same, and after 2 there was no excuse.