Tomb Raider 2 disappointing
Jason
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:42:54 -0600, joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com
wrote:
>* Lara's voice is different. It sounds like they have a different actor
>playing the role. Sheesh, you'd think after creating such a following
>they would have found someone with a more similar voice. The new Lara's
>voice is like an octave lower!
Definitely agree with you here. The new voice is very different. It
no longer has that 'innocent' sounding quality that made the first
voice so seductive.
Another problem I will add to your list is the cd access glitche (PC
version). Every time a sound needs to take place (ie. Lara's "a-ha",
the chime sound when finding a secret, etc.) the cd must start
spinning. And with the faster cd drives, that is about a 2 second
delay. The game simply freezes until the sound is accessed. This
problem could be easily eliminated by continually spinning the cd to
play the fantastic music that plays far to infrequently
To reply by e-mail, delete the '5prime.' and '.aaaaaa' from my address.
joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com
I must say, I have found Tomb Raider 2 to be a bit disappointing so far.
I am in the Opera House level now. Why disappointing? I'll tell you:
* Opening movie: cool, but what's the point?? If you don't read the
manual, you have no idea why Lara is at the Great Wall or what the goal
is. The first game's movie set the stage for the Grand Adventure.
There's NOTHING like that this time around. YUK.
* Lara's voice is different. It sounds like they have a different actor
playing the role. Sheesh, you'd think after creating such a following
they would have found someone with a more similar voice. The new Lara's
voice is like an octave lower!
* Only 3 secrets per level?? And this time you KNOW what you are looking
for?? That certainly takes the fun out of it. In the first game, part of
the fun was exploring every nook and cranny, finding secret passages and
rooms that were secret themselves. You never knew when you might climb up
somewhere and here the special music announcing a secret. Now it's "oh
there's one of those statues... big whoop." Once you've found all 3 you
know there's nothing left to look forward to on that level. Bleah.
* On the Playstation version, TONS of graphics glitches. The first one
looked much better in terms of solid graphics. Now there are seams
between the polygon walls, dead enemies fall half-in/half-out of walls,
Lara disappears into walls. Ugh.
* Enough of the Venice level already!! The Great Wall started out good,
exploring caves and dank, dark, passageways. One level and ZIP your off
to Venice, to spend what seems like forever walking around city streets.
What is this, Resident Evil 2?? Bring back the mystique of forgotten
worlds...
* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
I'm just amazed that Eidos and Core didn't put more care into the sequel.
Sure, there are new things that make the game interesting, but it really
seems to have lost all of the elements that made it so much fun in the
first place. I've seen numerous posts from people saying that TR2 is
harder than the first game. That astounds me. With the ability to save
at any point the game has become dead easy. Perhaps Eidos listened a
little too intently to all of the user suggestions they received. In
trying to please everyone, I think they've given gamers a let-down.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Gardy Louis
Since everyone is entitled to their own opionion, I'd like to comment on some
of your statements. I'm also on the Opera House Level
* I agree with you about the movie. It doesn't set up the game well.
*. Lara's voice is different, but, then again this is only a video game, not a
big deal.
*. Despite there being 3 secrets per level, there are still some areas that
aren't obvious
(i.e. the location of the uzis on the Bartoli's hideout level)
*. I'm playing the Pc version and there are graphics glitches as well
*. You're only on the 4th board of 16. Who knows what to expect
*. Saving at any point is a life-saver. Nothing is more frustrating than
having to repeat the
same sequence over and over because you're not at a save station
I don't think this game is a letdown. It expands on the ideas of the first
game. Exploring outdoor environments is a nice change to the game however,
there still seems to be enough of a cave element (the opera house level for
example). Overall, I believe this game improves on the first one.
John Vivian Matthews
Thus Spake joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com:
: * Lara's voice is different. It sounds like they have a different actor
: playing the role. Sheesh, you'd think after creating such a following
: they would have found someone with a more similar voice. The new Lara's
: voice is like an octave lower!
I agree. This bugged me at first. She almost sounds older, as though
she had gone from being 20-something to 30-something.
: * Only 3 secrets per level?? And this time you KNOW what you are looking
: for?? That certainly takes the fun out of it. In the first game, part of
: the fun was exploring every nook and cranny, finding secret passages and
: rooms that were secret themselves. You never knew when you might climb up
: somewhere and here the special music announcing a secret. Now it's "oh
: there's one of those statues... big whoop." Once you've found all 3 you
: know there's nothing left to look forward to on that level. Bleah.
As pointed out by someone else, there are things that aren't obvious, like
the Uzis. Also, since the levels are also structured so that certain parts
can't be accessed after you pass a certain point, you can't just finish a
level (except for walking out the door) and then go back and get all the
secrets you missed.
: * On the Playstation version, TONS of graphics glitches. The first one
: looked much better in terms of solid graphics. Now there are seams
: between the polygon walls, dead enemies fall half-in/half-out of walls,
: Lara disappears into walls. Ugh.
There are some graphics glitches, but since graphics aren't everything here,
I'm willing to overlook them. 95% of the time, there isn't a problem.
: * Enough of the Venice level already!! The Great Wall started out good,
: exploring caves and dank, dark, passageways. One level and ZIP your off
: to Venice, to spend what seems like forever walking around city streets.
: What is this, Resident Evil 2?? Bring back the mystique of forgotten
: worlds...
I thought that Opera House provided the same thrill that some of the temples
and tombs provided in TR1. Those fans are just wicked! Plus, I think that
fewer hazards are contrived as they sometimes seemed in TR1. (E.g. the glass
from the skylights makes a hazard like the spikes, the fans are part of
the ventilation system).
: * Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
: liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
: first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
: I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
: that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
: reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
The jury is still out on this, for me. I'm glad I can save any time I want,
but knowing that I could put myself at a point where I won't be able to get
all the secrets without starting the whole level all over again keeps me
from saving too often.)
: I've seen numerous posts from people saying that TR2 is
: harder than the first game. That astounds me.
I think that part of the difficulty is that now we don't have just enemy-
puzzle-enemy-puzzle and so on. Now we have more of enemies while trying
to complete a puzzle type thing.
matt
===========================================================================
||| John V. Matthews, III | PO Box 50355
||| NCSU Mathematics Graduate Student | Raleigh, NC 27650
/ | \ http://www4.ncsu.edu/eos/users/j/jvmatthe/www | (919) 515 7324
===========================================================================
ROO
Gardy Louis wrote:
>
>
> *. Saving at any point is a life-saver. Nothing is more frustrating
> than
> having to repeat the
> same sequence over and over because you're not at a save station
>
Let me preface this by saying I love this game, but I agree that the
save feature takes away from the game. The reason I loved the first
Tomb Raider & Resident Evil more is because saving wasn't something you
could do at the drop of a hat. This is like playing Doom in that before
you get to an area you think might be difficult you save and to me this
takes away some sense of accomplishment. I still think this game is
great though, now bring on Resident Evil 2...
ROO
Andrew Sawczyn
>* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
>liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
>first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
>I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
>that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
>reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
Next Generation had a great interview with an executive at Core. He
addressed the issue of being able to save at any point in the game, which
has always been a part of the pc version. He said that the average pc
player is much more adventurous than the playstation player. I agree with
him 100%. I find TombRaider to be an extremely repetitive game. Push the
block, pull the lever, swim to the edge, etc.... Being able to save at
specific points not only increases the repetiveness, but also increases the
likelyhood that I won't explore. To be honest with you, the only thing I
like about the original TR is seeing what the next level has to offer. I
find the puzzles to be quite similar to puzzles in other games (dating back
years and years) so that doesn't offer any challenges to me. Anything that
can help me get to the next level faster so I can be amazed at the sights is
a definite improvement to me.
Saving at any point does lessen the sense of accomplishment, but I also have
a major adversion to playing TR II because the first game was so
repetitious.
-Andrew
Tengu
In article <8803896...@dejanews.com>,
joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com says...
> I must say, I have found Tomb Raider 2 to be a bit disappointing so far.
> I am in the Opera House level now. Why disappointing? I'll tell you:
>
> * Opening movie: cool, but what's the point?? If you don't read the
> manual, you have no idea why Lara is at the Great Wall or what the goal
> is. The first game's movie set the stage for the Grand Adventure.
> There's NOTHING like that this time around. YUK.
>
Well, it could be said that TR2's opening sequence sets the tone
for a much *greater* adventure. IMO, Lara doesn't need to be in TR2's
opener- it shows that the game is not only about her, but about a story
that began centuries ago.
> * Lara's voice is different. It sounds like they have a different actor
> playing the role. Sheesh, you'd think after creating such a following
> they would have found someone with a more similar voice. The new Lara's
> voice is like an octave lower!
This is a personal preference, but I like the newer voice a bit
better. Lara's voice in the first game was a bit girlish- I personally
like her "new sound."
> * Only 3 secrets per level?? And this time you KNOW what you are looking
> for?? That certainly takes the fun out of it. In the first game, part of
> the fun was exploring every nook and cranny, finding secret passages and
> rooms that were secret themselves. You never knew when you might climb up
> somewhere and here the special music announcing a secret. Now it's "oh
> there's one of those statues... big whoop." Once you've found all 3 you
> know there's nothing left to look forward to on that level. Bleah.
I like the secrets in TR2 better. What the big deal about finding
a secret area if all you get is a first aid kit? In the first game, the
secrets seemed much too played up- what's so great about finding a little
extra ammo? IMO, the dragons are kind of cool. Why go searching around
for a magnum clip when you can go searching for a jade dragon? Let the
prey fit the hunt, I say.
> * On the Playstation version, TONS of graphics glitches. The first one
> looked much better in terms of solid graphics. Now there are seams
> between the polygon walls, dead enemies fall half-in/half-out of walls,
> Lara disappears into walls. Ugh.
I haven't played the PSX version, so I can't comment. I've
noticed some clipping problems on the PC version too, though. (You know-
the clipping problems Eidos said they had fixed entirely.)
> * Enough of the Venice level already!! The Great Wall started out good,
> exploring caves and dank, dark, passageways. One level and ZIP your off
> to Venice, to spend what seems like forever walking around city streets.
> What is this, Resident Evil 2?? Bring back the mystique of forgotten
> worlds...
I agree there, too. The Venice levels strike me as too dark, too
repetitive, or both combined. I'd rather have had the Great Wall level
be a bit larger too.
Tengu:<>
matt folger
Funny, I felt the opposite on nearly everything you pointed out, most of
which was being picky for such an entertaining game.
matt
joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com wrote in message
<8803896...@dejanews.com>...
>I must say, I have found Tomb Raider 2 to be a bit disappointing so far.
>I am in the Opera House level now. Why disappointing? I'll tell you:
>
>(lots of stuff removed to save space...)
William Murphy
>I must say, I have found Tomb Raider 2 to be a bit disappointing so far.
>I am in the Opera House level now. Why disappointing? I'll tell you:
>
>* Opening movie: cool, but what's the point?? If you don't read the
>manual, you have no idea why Lara is at the Great Wall or what the goal
>is. The first game's movie set the stage for the Grand Adventure.
>There's NOTHING like that this time around. YUK.
I recall Star Wars started out with a text explanation.
>* Lara's voice is different. It sounds like they have a different actor
>playing the role. Sheesh, you'd think after creating such a following
>they would have found someone with a more similar voice. The new Lara's
>voice is like an octave lower!
The new voice is as fine as the old voice, just different.
>* Only 3 secrets per level?? And this time you KNOW what you are looking
>for?? That certainly takes the fun out of it. In the first game, part of
>the fun was exploring every nook and cranny, finding secret passages and
>rooms that were secret themselves. You never knew when you might climb up
>somewhere and here the special music announcing a secret. Now it's "oh
>there's one of those statues... big whoop." Once you've found all 3 you
>know there's nothing left to look forward to on that level. Bleah.
You never know when you might climb up somewhere and see a jade
statue. Same idea, just a different mechanism for announcing the
secret.
>* On the Playstation version, TONS of graphics glitches. The first one
>looked much better in terms of solid graphics. Now there are seams
>between the polygon walls, dead enemies fall half-in/half-out of walls,
>Lara disappears into walls. Ugh.
The original PC version had tons of graphics glitches. I'm not
playing the software-only version this time so I'm not sure if there's
been any improvement.
>* Enough of the Venice level already!! The Great Wall started out good,
>exploring caves and dank, dark, passageways. One level and ZIP your off
>to Venice, to spend what seems like forever walking around city streets.
>What is this, Resident Evil 2?? Bring back the mystique of forgotten
>worlds...
I'm sick of seeing nothing but ancient civilizations. I really
appreciate the variety of locales in TR2.
>* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
>liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
>first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
>I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
>that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
>reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
Restarting whole sections is a pain in the ass. Thank God I played
the PC version of TR1. This business with saving only in specific
places sounds largely the product of limited memory. If you can save
anywhere, then the details of where you save will take up a lot of
space (e.g., exactly where you are, what you've done and haven't done,
etc.). Limiting saves to specific places allows the designers simply
to number the places, "1, 2, 3", saving memory. I guess they've
figured out a way to implement arbitrary saves on the playstation.
>I'm just amazed that Eidos and Core didn't put more care into the sequel.
>Sure, there are new things that make the game interesting, but it really
>seems to have lost all of the elements that made it so much fun in the
All of the elements? I think you exaggerate. It's lost some elements
and gained others, which I guess you haven't noticed yet. For
example, the musical themes are more interesting (I particularly like
that faux-baroque score that plays in Venice) and seem to me to be
better integrated into the action.
>first place. I've seen numerous posts from people saying that TR2 is
>harder than the first game. That astounds me. With the ability to save
>at any point the game has become dead easy.
The hardest thing about TR1 on the PC is the puzzles. They may have
gotten harder. Or not. I don't really remember.
Eden Frost
Up until now, I didn't notice the differnece in Lara's voice which goes to sho
that it's not as significant as you guys might think. At least to me, it was
not.
As for the riddence of the save gem, I have mixed opinion. It's nice to save
whenever you desire. God knows I was going berzerk at times on TR1 repeating
certain sequences just to reach a save gem. On the downside, it does plenty
in taking away the adventure not to mention thrill that comes with TR1.
Also, has anyone notice that holes in the storyline. The opening cinematic
sequence was superb, but where does Lara fit into this. Were not for the
manual, I would have had no idea on what the point is behind her quest.
Furthermore, from my standpoint, and I'm standing on level 6, the story behind
the game is quite lame. So Lara is after that what's-hi-name in Venice. And
for some misapparent reasons, Lara ended up reaching a plane that "waited" for
her to arrive before taking off??? It's a bit absurb, don't you guys think???
I also wished Core would have improve on the graphics. Floating bodies,
see-thru walls, and oh, the disappearing corpses really bug me. This is a
sequal, right??? The least I expect is some improvement.
But all in all, I still enjoy the game. After all, it's the closest thing we
have to an Indiana-Jone-esque adventure. And having finished TR1 and bonded
with the character don't hurt either.
eden
Jason (5prime....@wfol.net.aaaaaa) wrote:
: On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:42:54 -0600, joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com
: wrote:
: >* Lara's voice is different. It sounds like they have a different actor
: >playing the role. Sheesh, you'd think after creating such a following
: >they would have found someone with a more similar voice. The new Lara's
: >voice is like an octave lower!
: Definitely agree with you here. The new voice is very different. It
: no longer has that 'innocent' sounding quality that made the first
: voice so seductive.
: Another problem I will add to your list is the cd access glitche (PC
: version). Every time a sound needs to take place (ie. Lara's "a-ha",
: the chime sound when finding a secret, etc.) the cd must start
: spinning. And with the faster cd drives, that is about a 2 second
: delay. The game simply freezes until the sound is accessed. This
: problem could be easily eliminated by continually spinning the cd to
: play the fantastic music that plays far to infrequently
: To reply by e-mail, delete the '5prime.' and '.aaaaaa' from my address.
--
eden
__ _____
/ ` / / ' _/_
/-- __/ _ ____ ,-/-, __ _____ /
Max Maynard-Maloney
joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com wrote:
...
>
> * Opening movie: cool, but what's the point?? If you don't read the
> manual, you have no idea why Lara is at the Great Wall or what the
> goal is. The first game's movie set the stage for the Grand
> Adventure. There's NOTHING like that this time around. YUK.
>
days. Everyone focuses on rendering and the animation is horrible.
Regarding the content of the intro, I agree with you as well.
> * Lara's voice is different. It sounds like they have a different
> actor playing the role. Sheesh, you'd think after creating such a
> following they would have found someone with a more similar voice.
> The new Lara's voice is like an octave lower!
>
This really pisses me off. The new voice sounds hard and emotionless.
I thought the original voice actor had an awesome voice.
> * Only 3 secrets per level?? And this time you KNOW what you are
> looking for?? That certainly takes the fun out of it.
>
You mean 3 'defined' secrets. There are plenty of hidden things (ammo,
medi-kits) which were all the TR1 secrets were anyway.
> * On the Playstation version, TONS of graphics glitches.
>
Every glitch you mention is irritating, but every one of those glitches
was present in the first game as well. For an easy to find example
start the first level of TR1 and go to the large room covered in vines
(the one with the sunken passage in the floor leading to the wall switch
and door). Look around in this room and you will see the gaps between
all the polygons.
> * Enough of the Venice level already!!
>
I'm on Opera House as well, but I guess this is just a matter of
preference. I like the variety of being outdoors instead of only being
underground. For the pulp/Indiana Jones feel that Tomb Raider evokes,
the Venice setting meshes perfectly and provides visual variety. Not to
mention an excuse for fighting lots of dudes.
> * Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it.
>
You know you don't HAVE to save. Personally I only save 1-3 times per
level which is pretty close to the number of save points in the old game
and these levels are noticably larger.
> I'm just amazed that Eidos and Core didn't put more care into the
> sequel.
>
My biggest complaint is DEFINATELY the voice. I also hated the R2
button=flare configuration until I found controller config #2.
Max
Billy Bissette
William Murphy <metamu...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> >manual, you have no idea why Lara is at the Great Wall or what the goal
> >is. The first game's movie set the stage for the Grand Adventure.
> >There's NOTHING like that this time around. YUK.
>
Actually the first wasn't THAT descriptive. All its intro did was show
that Lara was stupid enough to leave her rope outside. Although a friend
swears that she had to have been the one that killed the guide, the way
she just blasted everything... :P
> >* Lara's voice is different. It sounds like they have a different actor
> >playing the role. Sheesh, you'd think after creating such a following
> >they would have found someone with a more similar voice. The new Lara's
> >voice is like an octave lower!
>
> The new voice is as fine as the old voice, just different.
Uhm, why did they change the voice? Is it that "real-life" Lara?
> >* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
> >liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
> >first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
> >I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
> >that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
> >reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
>
> Restarting whole sections is a pain in the ass. Thank God I played
> the PC version of TR1. This business with saving only in specific
> places sounds largely the product of limited memory. If you can save
> anywhere, then the details of where you save will take up a lot of
> space (e.g., exactly where you are, what you've done and haven't done,
> etc.). Limiting saves to specific places allows the designers simply
> to number the places, "1, 2, 3", saving memory. I guess they've
> figured out a way to implement arbitrary saves on the playstation.
I have to agree with the first poster here. The save anywhere bit
destroys the in-game feel. It really diminishes the risks of the game.
In the PSX version of TR1, you'd find a save point, then seriously
consider whether you wanted to save yet. You'd weigh the risk of your
actions. In the PC version, you just save whenever you feel like. There
was almost no risk in it. Get past a trap and save. Kill two critters
and save. Get past next trap and save. No danger. It ruins the whole
feel of being Lara as you can act without any fear of consequences.
In the PSX version you would be willing to pump a few shotgun blasts into
a flying demon because you DON'T want to keep scaling the wall to that
point. And getting the Uzi's at the Sphinx is a challenge, as well as
getting down. When a pack of apes or demons attack, you REALLY worry.
Etc...
What I fear is that to counter the 'save anywhere' feature, they may
have pumped some enemies up to the point that you pretty much have to
save right in front of any major foes...
Mark Smith
>* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
>liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
>first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
>I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
>that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
>reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
>
Just because you CAN save doesn't mean you HAVE TO. If you think its too easy
being able to save whenever you like then just lay off the F5 key (or whatever
it is on the PSX) and keep on playing.
I for one - like having the convenience of saving whenever I like when something
other than TR2 arises in the REAL WORLD. That way I don't have to leave my
computer/PSX on for several unattended hours. I can see it now...
"Come on...the movie is going to start...hurry up..."
"Hang on....I gotta find that damn blue crystal..."
NO THANKS!
Jeff
>* Opening movie: cool, but what's the point?? If you don't read the
>manual, you have no idea why Lara is at the Great Wall or what the goal
>is. The first game's movie set the stage for the Grand Adventure.
>There's NOTHING like that this time around. YUK.
>
Agreed. While I do like the game, they seemed to skimp a little on the
story this time.
The End of the first level is good though...
>* Lara's voice is different. It sounds like they have a different actor
>playing the role. Sheesh, you'd think after creating such a following
>they would have found someone with a more similar voice. The new Lara's
>voice is like an octave lower!
>
100% agreed. Lara sounded way better before.
>* Only 3 secrets per level?? And this time you KNOW what you are looking
>for?? That certainly takes the fun out of it. In the first game, part of
>the fun was exploring every nook and cranny, finding secret passages and
>rooms that were secret themselves. You never knew when you might climb up
>somewhere and here the special music announcing a secret. Now it's "oh
>there's one of those statues... big whoop." Once you've found all 3 you
>know there's nothing left to look forward to on that level. Bleah.
>
I don't agree here. I like the secrets better now...and I still explore
every nook and cranny just for the hell of it. But at least the secrets
make a little more sense now...what I always wondered in TR was who the heck
left medpacks and ammo lying around ruins that nobody had been to in
millenia.
>* On the Playstation version, TONS of graphics glitches. The first one
>looked much better in terms of solid graphics. Now there are seams
>between the polygon walls, dead enemies fall half-in/half-out of walls,
>Lara disappears into walls. Ugh.
>
That always did happen on the PC...even in the first one...except for the
seams between walls. I don't have any seams between walls...
>* Enough of the Venice level already!! The Great Wall started out good,
>exploring caves and dank, dark, passageways. One level and ZIP your off
>to Venice, to spend what seems like forever walking around city streets.
>What is this, Resident Evil 2?? Bring back the mystique of forgotten
>worlds...
>
If I am not out of venice by the end of the opera house, I will agree with
you.
>* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
>liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
>first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
>I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
>that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
>reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
>
I am used to saving at any point...the PC version of the original was like
that. Don't know about you, but with the way lara's bones snap, I am quite
nervous about killing her even with the save game feature...there was always
enough atmosphere in Tombraider to elicit a scream from my wife...even with
the save game features.
>I'm just amazed that Eidos and Core didn't put more care into the sequel.
>Sure, there are new things that make the game interesting, but it really
>seems to have lost all of the elements that made it so much fun in the
>first place. I've seen numerous posts from people saying that TR2 is
>harder than the first game. That astounds me. With the ability to save
M. Gillgannon
Regarding save points: I prefer the "save anywhere" approach. (To those
who don't like it: No one's forcing you to save, are they?"
There is a compromise approach and I wonder if they looked at it ‹ save
points that don't disappear like the gems did in TR1, but which can be
used multiple times. In other words, save points like most of the console
RPGs I've played.
-mjg
In article <65d9mj$e...@camel20.mindspring.com>, "Andrew Sawczyn"
<asaw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
> >liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
> >first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
> >I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
> >that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
> >reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
>
Patrick Dolan
William Murphy wrote in message <347b5549...@news.tiac.net>...
>On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:42:54 -0600, joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com
>wrote:
>
<snip>
>>* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
>>liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
>>first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
>>I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
>>that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
>>reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
>
>Restarting whole sections is a pain in the ass. Thank God I played
>the PC version of TR1. This business with saving only in specific
>places sounds largely the product of limited memory. If you can save
>anywhere, then the details of where you save will take up a lot of
>space (e.g., exactly where you are, what you've done and haven't done,
>etc.). Limiting saves to specific places allows the designers simply
>to number the places, "1, 2, 3", saving memory. I guess they've
>figured out a way to implement arbitrary saves on the playstation.
>
It has nothing to do with memory/saving data problems. Saving your game was
a reward in the original game, and provided a large portion of the games
challenge. Unfortunately, when they went to the PC, they were faced with a
market that is used to getting through every game the first time they played
it, by simply saving each step of the way so they wouldn't have to backtrack
or lose any time on their way to the ending.
I suppose the only logical step now is to make the games play themselves, so
you don't have to worry about saving your game either....:)
Seriously, I can understand that people get frustrated if they get stuck on
one level they have to keep re-playing, but at least you get a sense of
accomplishment when you finish it. If you can save every step of the way,
you're not really earning anything. Hell, you aren't even really playing the
game, you're just plodding through by the numbers without having to be
challenged. A trained monkey could play through the game with that approach!
Sorry about the rant, I'm just getting sick and tired of the continual
"dumbing down" of games. I, for one, would like to be challenged when I play
a game, and feel like I've accomplished something special when I beat it.
But when I know people are using codes, cheats, hint-books, walk throughs,
gamesharks and constant saving to do the same thing, it cheapens the
experience and makes me less interested in playing the game.
Rattler
> >* Opening movie: cool, but what's the point?? If you don't read the
> >manual, you have no idea why Lara is at the Great Wall or what the goal
> >is. The first game's movie set the stage for the Grand Adventure.
> >There's NOTHING like that this time around. YUK.
I agree I had no idea what the point of the game was until I re-read the
manual again, I had no idea at first what i was after.
> >* Lara's voice is different. It sounds like they have a different actor
> >playing the role. Sheesh, you'd think after creating such a following
> >they would have found someone with a more similar voice. The new Lara's
> >voice is like an octave lower!
Well since I was born in Englad and lived there for 15 years before I moved
here to Canada due to my job I find the new Lara's voice better, I love the
Yorkshire accent
Patrick Dolan
Mark Smith wrote in message <347be50d...@news.concentric.net>...
>
>>* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
>>liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
>>first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
>>I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
>>that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
>>reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
>>
>Just because you CAN save doesn't mean you HAVE TO. If you think its too
easy
>being able to save whenever you like then just lay off the F5 key (or
whatever
>it is on the PSX) and keep on playing.
>
The point is that in Tomb Raider (PSX), the save crystals were a tangible
reward for your efforts as well as a goal and a save point. Plus, you had to
make judgements about whether you should use it now or wait. It wasn't
merely an indefinate "pause" feature, or a safety net, like it is now.
>I for one - like having the convenience of saving whenever I like when
something
>other than TR2 arises in the REAL WORLD. That way I don't have to leave my
>computer/PSX on for several unattended hours. I can see it now...
>
>"Come on...the movie is going to start...hurry up..."
>
>"Hang on....I gotta find that damn blue crystal..."
>
>NO THANKS!
??? That never happened to me. I'd either pause it, turn it off and restart
from my _last_ crystal, or say "Screw the movie, I'm playing a damn game!".
:)
But again, I'm not worried about having to replay parts of an entertaining
game. To me, playing the game is more important than simply winning
(although when I win, using my own skill and reflexes rather than constantly
saving and restarting, I get a huge feeling of accomplishment)
Taco Prankster
> I have to agree with the first poster here. The save anywhere bit
>destroys the in-game feel. It really diminishes the risks of the game.
>In the PSX version of TR1, you'd find a save point, then seriously
>consider whether you wanted to save yet. You'd weigh the risk of your
>actions. In the PC version, you just save whenever you feel like. There
>was almost no risk in it. Get past a trap and save. Kill two critters
>and save. Get past next trap and save. No danger. It ruins the whole
>feel of being Lara as you can act without any fear of consequences.
>In the PSX version you would be willing to pump a few shotgun blasts into
>a flying demon because you DON'T want to keep scaling the wall to that
>point. And getting the Uzi's at the Sphinx is a challenge, as well as
>getting down. When a pack of apes or demons attack, you REALLY worry.
>Etc...
>
> What I fear is that to counter the 'save anywhere' feature, they may
>have pumped some enemies up to the point that you pretty much have to
>save right in front of any major foes...
Y'all sound like little babies. Just don't save if you don't want to. Use
self-control. I personally only tried to saved games when I wanted to quit.
I thought it was good being able to save right where I left off. I didn't
have to re-check that switches were tripped.
As far as saving just before you do something gutsy, well, it's a gutsy
move. Why should you have re-do all the really simple thing over to get
back to where you were. They are simple. The hard part is the gutsy stuff.
In a game where footwork can mean catching a ledge or falling to your death,
this feature allows you to be creative. Also, this feature allows your go
back and fight a T-Rex, whenever you want.
Phidias Barrios
some people wrote:
> >Seriously, I can understand that people get frustrated if they get stuck on
> >one level they have to keep re-playing, but at least you get a sense of
> >accomplishment when you finish it. If you can save every step of the way,
> >you're not really earning anything. Hell, you aren't even really playing the
> >game, you're just plodding through by the numbers without having to be
> >challenged. A trained monkey could play through the game with that approach!
>
> The point of gaming isn't to "accomplish" something, it's to enjoy
> oneself. Games are wastes of time, period.
This brings up an interesting point about "accomplishment". First, I
want to say that I'm still a video game freak... Not as much as I used
to be but I still play when I can.
Anyhow, I must have spent literally thousands of dollars on those
original Nintendo games. I'm proud to say that I "finished" every
single one of them. At the time, I did feel a sense of
"accomplishment" whenever I conquered a game. However, with some
retrospect, I wonder what I really got out of it.
With all the hours I devoted to Nintendo I could have taken up another
hobby or sport with much more long-term value. But as I said before,
I'm still a big video game enthusiast. I just thought the issue of
accomplishment was interesting. ;)
P.Ba
--
.----------------------.
. ___GO___ .
. ____LAKERS____ .
. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/ .
. \/\/\/\/\/\/ .
. \/\/\/\/\/ .
. \/\/\/\/ .
. \/\/\/ .
.----------------------.
Mark Androvich
matt folger <mfo...@sprintmail.com(%)> wrote in article
<65dmgq$rfv$1...@newsfep4.sprintmail.com>...
> Funny, I felt the opposite on nearly everything you pointed out, most of
> which was being picky for such an entertaining game.
>
> matt
>
> joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com wrote in message
> <8803896...@dejanews.com>...
> >I am in the Opera House level now. Why disappointing? I'll tell you:
> >
> >
sequel.
> >Sure, there are new things that make the game interesting, but it really
> >seems to have lost all of the elements that made it so much fun in the
> >first place. I've seen numerous posts from people saying that TR2 is
> >harder than the first game. That astounds me. With the ability to save
> >at any point the game has become dead easy. Perhaps Eidos listened a
> >little too intently to all of the user suggestions they received. In
> >trying to please everyone, I think they've given gamers a let-down.
I disagree. To be sure, removal of the save gems in favor of a save at any
time system makes the game easier to complete. You don't have to plan as
carefully knowing that if you die you will have to go back to the last save
gem area (which, in TR, could be a long way back at times).
On the other hand, the ability to save encourages players to explore areas,
try different jumps, etc. In the first game, I mostly ran through to stay
alive. I then came back to find secrets. In TR2, I take my time to find
the secrets while I am in the level in the first place.
The new moves-- climbing, turning underwater and in midair, and shooting
underwater-- as well as costume changes, flares, and the new levels are
very entertaining. Sure, it is more of the same-- find levers and buttons
and push them while avoiding traps and killing bad guys-- but that is what
I liked about TR 1.
However, I wonder if there will be a TR3. Except for improved graphics,
I'm not sure what else they can add. At some point, gamers will tire of
the theme. For example, I was a fan of Crash and I love Crash 2, but Crash
3? They are starting it, but I don't think I'm interested any more. Same
would go for TR3 and TR4.
A $19.99 TR expansion disk, however, would be great...
Mark
William Murphy
>
>William Murphy wrote in message <347b5549...@news.tiac.net>...
>>On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:42:54 -0600, joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com
>>wrote:
>>
>
>
><snip>
>
>>>* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
>>>liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
>>>first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
>>>I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
>>>that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
>>>reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
>>
>>Restarting whole sections is a pain in the ass. Thank God I played
>>the PC version of TR1. This business with saving only in specific
>>places sounds largely the product of limited memory. If you can save
>>anywhere, then the details of where you save will take up a lot of
>>space (e.g., exactly where you are, what you've done and haven't done,
>>etc.). Limiting saves to specific places allows the designers simply
>>to number the places, "1, 2, 3", saving memory. I guess they've
>>figured out a way to implement arbitrary saves on the playstation.
>>
>
>It has nothing to do with memory/saving data problems.
I for one am not convinced of this. Restricted save-places do save
memory, especially if they're implemented using level codes that you
have to write down (this method requires no memory at all). On the
PC, each Tombraider (I) savegame was about 10 kilobytes (I just
checked one - still on my drive). An original Playstation memory card
had 64 kilobytes (at most). An unenhanced Sega Saturn has 32
kilobytes, so I'm informed. This memory would need to be shared by
all games. By way of contrast, the typical PC selling today has at
least 2 gigabytes of hard drive space. I can see how the makers of
Tombraider might have been reluctant to endow the videogame version
with arbitrary save. Certainly they would not be able to give every
Playstation-with-card owner the ~20-place save ability that PC users
had, since that would require 200 kilobytes minimum.
>Saving your game was
>a reward in the original game, and provided a large portion of the games
>challenge. Unfortunately, when they went to the PC, they were faced with a
>market that is used to getting through every game the first time they played
>it, by simply saving each step of the way so they wouldn't have to backtrack
>or lose any time on their way to the ending.
The theory assumes a lower level of intelligence and/or patience among
PC owners than among Playstation owners. Unlikely - as you would
probably admit if you saw the things PC owners have had to do to get
this or that that motherfucking pieceacrap DOS game to run on their
computers. Also you neglect the increasing popularity of online games
- not a genre that can be saved. But who wants to save *those*? (See
discussion of Myth below)
>Seriously, I can understand that people get frustrated if they get stuck on
>one level they have to keep re-playing, but at least you get a sense of
>accomplishment when you finish it. If you can save every step of the way,
>you're not really earning anything. Hell, you aren't even really playing the
>game, you're just plodding through by the numbers without having to be
>challenged. A trained monkey could play through the game with that approach!
The point of gaming isn't to "accomplish" something, it's to enjoy
oneself. Games are wastes of time, period.
>Sorry about the rant, I'm just getting sick and tired of the continual
>"dumbing down" of games.
Today's games are no dumber than yesterday's. Try Incubation, or
Myth, or Longbow 2, or Total Annihilation if you want a challenge.
(Those are PC games. I'm not familiar with Playstation games.)
>I, for one, would like to be challenged when I play
>a game, and feel like I've accomplished something special when I beat it.
As was pointed out elsewhere, don't save. Anything hard can be a
challenge, but if it's also boring then I don't want to be challenged
in that way. I like interesting challenges. As an example, consider
Myth, which is a real-time strategy game. You are allowed to save
anywhere in a battle, but I enjoy battle in this game so much that
I'll play it ten times from the beginning, or however long it takes to
win, rather than save it. The tasks in Tombraider, including the
fights, are just not up to this standard. It's interesting the first
couple of times through, but I quickly get bored.
>But when I know people are using codes, cheats, hint-books, walk throughs,
>gamesharks and constant saving to do the same thing, it cheapens the
>experience and makes me less interested in playing the game.
What do you care what others are doing? I sure don't.
Kill All Spammers
In article <8803896...@dejanews.com>, <joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com> wrote:
>I must say, I have found Tomb Raider 2 to be a bit disappointing so far.
>I am in the Opera House level now. Why disappointing? I'll tell you:
I don't have it yet but it's on my Christmas list.
>* Lara's voice is different. It sounds like they have a different actor
>playing the role. Sheesh, you'd think after creating such a following
>they would have found someone with a more similar voice. The new Lara's
>voice is like an octave lower!
That is dissapointing. I'm suprised they couldn't get the same
actress. I really liked the voice of the original.
>* On the Playstation version, TONS of graphics glitches. The first one
>looked much better in terms of solid graphics. Now there are seams
>between the polygon walls, dead enemies fall half-in/half-out of walls,
>Lara disappears into walls. Ugh.
There's plenty of both of those things in the first version. I've even
managed to get Lara stuck in a wall. The T-Rex often dies with half
its body inside a rock.
>* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
>liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
>first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
>I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
>that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
>reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
I hated the blue jewels. I like the idea of being able to save where I
want to. There are several long stretches in the first one with no
saves that only have a really tough part at the end. It takes a long
time to get back to that point if you die and that annoys me. Also, in
some cases I try to save the crystals for later but the crystals
themselves get in the way of movement. Very annoying. Perhaps a
compromise would be to only allow a limited number of saves per level
or per certain segment?
--Bill Davidson
William Murphy
>As was pointed out elsewhere, don't save. Anything hard can be a
>challenge, but if it's also boring then I don't want to be challenged
>in that way. I like interesting challenges. As an example, consider
>Myth, which is a real-time strategy game. You are allowed to save
>anywhere in a battle, but I enjoy battle in this game so much that
>I'll play it ten times from the beginning, or however long it takes to
>win, rather than save it. The tasks in Tombraider, including the
>fights, are just not up to this standard. It's interesting the first
>couple of times through, but I quickly get bored.
To pinpoint one major difference between a game like Myth, and a game
like Tomb Raider (I or II): each iteration of a Myth battle is
different from others, much the way a chess game is different from all
others, or a soccer game is different. That's why it doesn't get
boring to replay a battle from the beginning. Tombraider is much less
openended, so even though the first time around it's really
interesting, it gets old fast.
Patrick Dolan
William Murphy wrote in message <347f901a...@news.tiac.net>...
>On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 17:29:07 -0600, "Patrick Dolan"
><patd...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>William Murphy wrote in message <347b5549...@news.tiac.net>...
>>>On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:42:54 -0600, joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
>>>>liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
>>>>first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
>>>>I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
>>>>that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
>>>>reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
>>>
>>>Restarting whole sections is a pain in the ass. Thank God I played
>>>the PC version of TR1. This business with saving only in specific
>>>places sounds largely the product of limited memory. If you can save
>>>anywhere, then the details of where you save will take up a lot of
>>>space (e.g., exactly where you are, what you've done and haven't done,
>>>etc.). Limiting saves to specific places allows the designers simply
>>>to number the places, "1, 2, 3", saving memory. I guess they've
>>>figured out a way to implement arbitrary saves on the playstation.
>>>
>>
>>It has nothing to do with memory/saving data problems.
>
>I for one am not convinced of this. Restricted save-places do save
>memory, especially if they're implemented using level codes that you
>have to write down (this method requires no memory at all). On the
>PC, each Tombraider (I) savegame was about 10 kilobytes (I just
>checked one - still on my drive). An original Playstation memory card
>had 64 kilobytes (at most). An unenhanced Sega Saturn has 32
>kilobytes, so I'm informed. This memory would need to be shared by
>all games. By way of contrast, the typical PC selling today has at
>least 2 gigabytes of hard drive space. I can see how the makers of
>Tombraider might have been reluctant to endow the videogame version
>with arbitrary save. Certainly they would not be able to give every
>Playstation-with-card owner the ~20-place save ability that PC users
>had, since that would require 200 kilobytes minimum.
>
Nontheless, there have been other "save anywhere" PSX games, and Tombraider
2 now supports the same feature. I doubt it would have been much more
difficult to do it with the original game, but I suppose it's possible.
>>Saving your game was
>>a reward in the original game, and provided a large portion of the games
>>challenge. Unfortunately, when they went to the PC, they were faced with a
>>market that is used to getting through every game the first time they
played
>>it, by simply saving each step of the way so they wouldn't have to
backtrack
>>or lose any time on their way to the ending.
>
>The theory assumes a lower level of intelligence and/or patience among
>PC owners than among Playstation owners. Unlikely - as you would
>probably admit if you saw the things PC owners have had to do to get
>this or that that motherfucking pieceacrap DOS game to run on their
>computers. Also you neglect the increasing popularity of online games
>- not a genre that can be saved. But who wants to save *those*? (See
>discussion of Myth below)
>
Online games rarely have an "ending", they are simply a series of conflicts
between multiple players. There is no way to "beat" the game like there is
with quest/adventure type titles.
I don't think that the desire to get through the game in one go is a sign of
less intelligence, just a reflection of the background PC gamers have.
Constant saving in PC games has been ingrained throughoughly into the
development mindset.
Unfortunately, this "one play" attitude is taking root among gamers who want
to get through the game quickly and see everything all at the same time.
They seem to want a movie, not an actual game, and the game companies are
providing them with it. Gamers seem less concerned with playing the game
than with "beating" the game, and once they've beaten it, they complain that
it was too short.
>>Seriously, I can understand that people get frustrated if they get stuck
on
>>one level they have to keep re-playing, but at least you get a sense of
>>accomplishment when you finish it. If you can save every step of the way,
>>you're not really earning anything. Hell, you aren't even really playing
the
>>game, you're just plodding through by the numbers without having to be
>>challenged. A trained monkey could play through the game with that
approach!
>
>The point of gaming isn't to "accomplish" something, it's to enjoy
>oneself. Games are wastes of time, period.
>
Exactly. The point of the game is to _play_ the game, but I get the feeling
that more and more gamers aren't really concerned with this, they simply
want to "beat" the game and move on to the next title. And they'll use
gamesharks, cheat codes, hint books, unlimited saves or whatever else it
takes in order to accomplish this.
>>Sorry about the rant, I'm just getting sick and tired of the continual
>>"dumbing down" of games.
>
>Today's games are no dumber than yesterday's. Try Incubation, or
>Myth, or Longbow 2, or Total Annihilation if you want a challenge.
>(Those are PC games. I'm not familiar with Playstation games.)
>
Mission based games generally don't offer the ability to save at any point,
or just before facing a real challenge. Generally, you have to save at the
end of the mission, once you've actually _accomplished_ something. Thus, you
are given a reward for your efforts and you can't use the save to cheat your
way past things.
>>I, for one, would like to be challenged when I play
>>a game, and feel like I've accomplished something special when I beat it.
>
>As was pointed out elsewhere, don't save. Anything hard can be a
>challenge, but if it's also boring then I don't want to be challenged
>in that way. I like interesting challenges. As an example, consider
>Myth, which is a real-time strategy game. You are allowed to save
>anywhere in a battle, but I enjoy battle in this game so much that
>I'll play it ten times from the beginning, or however long it takes to
>win, rather than save it. The tasks in Tombraider, including the
>fights, are just not up to this standard. It's interesting the first
>couple of times through, but I quickly get bored.
>
The problem is that just "not saving" doesn't put back the reward of finding
a save point, the strategic element of deciding whether I should use it, or
the weighing of how many risks I'm willing to take to get to it. And
unfortunately, games that support unlimited saves tend to make the playing
of the game so difficult that you often have no choice but to save often if
you want any chance of advancing.
>>But when I know people are using codes, cheats, hint-books, walk throughs,
>>gamesharks and constant saving to do the same thing, it cheapens the
>>experience and makes me less interested in playing the game.
>
>What do you care what others are doing? I sure don't.
In general, I don't. But the thrill of reaching a point in the game is
lessened when I used my skill, reflexes and ingenuity to get there in three
days, when I know that little Timmy Taylor blew through the entire game in a
night, using cheat codes and infinite saves and is blabbing to everyone
about how easy the game was and how it sucks because it's so short. It's not
a big thing really, just another small piece that adds up.
I dunno, the first Tomb Raider is considered to be a classic on the PSX, and
people loved it _even though_ it used save points. Frankly, I think they
were a good feature, one that helped _make_ it a good game. I think
developers need to realize that just because something is hard, it doesn't
necessarily need to be "fixed".
Patrick Dolan
Kill All Spammers wrote in message <65g0m4$3...@newsworthy.West.Sun.COM>...
>In article <8803896...@dejanews.com>,
<joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com> wrote:
>>* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
>>liked the concept of the blue jewels and how you had to make it there
>>first to be able to save. Now it's "this looks like a difficult jump...
>>I better save before I attempt it." There's much less tension knowing
>>that you can simply reload if you screw up. The blue jewels were a
>>reward after a particularly nasty bit of exploring and surviving.
>
>I hated the blue jewels. I like the idea of being able to save where I
>want to. There are several long stretches in the first one with no
>saves that only have a really tough part at the end. It takes a long
>time to get back to that point if you die and that annoys me. Also, in
>some cases I try to save the crystals for later but the crystals
>themselves get in the way of movement. Very annoying. Perhaps a
>compromise would be to only allow a limited number of saves per level
>or per certain segment?
>
I think they could have simply given you a single "crystal" that you could
use to save the game at any point, but then it would be used up. Additional
crystals could be hidden throughout the game, so if you wanted to you could
stock 'em up (probably should have a limit of some sort) but they'd still
provide you with a reward, and keep some of the risk that was present in the
first game.
Patrick Dolan
Patrick Dolan wrote in message <65gfbu$i...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>
>William Murphy wrote in message <347f901a...@news.tiac.net>...
>>On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 17:29:07 -0600, "Patrick Dolan"
>><patd...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>William Murphy wrote in message <347b5549...@news.tiac.net>...
>>>>On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:42:54 -0600, joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com
>>>>wrote:
<snip>
>>As was pointed out elsewhere, don't save. Anything hard can be a
>>challenge, but if it's also boring then I don't want to be challenged
>>in that way. I like interesting challenges. As an example, consider
>>Myth, which is a real-time strategy game. You are allowed to save
>>anywhere in a battle, but I enjoy battle in this game so much that
>>I'll play it ten times from the beginning, or however long it takes to
>>win, rather than save it. The tasks in Tombraider, including the
>>fights, are just not up to this standard. It's interesting the first
>>couple of times through, but I quickly get bored.
>>
(forgot this comment in my previous post)
Oddly enough, I find the basic gameplay of Tombraider to be so enjoyable, I
don't mind replaying elements of it. Like your approach with Myth, I found
myself simply replaying levels (hell, I replayed the entire game several
times from the beginning) just because I enjoyed playing the game. So I
suppose this is just a matter of opinion. I love the basic gameplay in TR,
including the fights, the simple tasks of climbing obstacles and navigating
the environment, you don't.
No offense, but IMHO, it sounds like you might be more interested in
finishing Tomb Raider than you are in playing it. On the other hand, I might
have a similar attitude to Myth, wanting to just get to the end because I
personally find the fights interesting the first couple of times, but boring
after a while. On the other hand, if that happened to me, I'd just stop
playing the game completely. It's fun and rewarding to get the end, but if
the journey there wasn't entertaining I'm not going to take the time to do
it. (BTW- No, I haven't played Myth, I was simply using it as an example).
William Murphy
>(forgot this comment in my previous post)
>Oddly enough, I find the basic gameplay of Tombraider to be so enjoyable, I
>don't mind replaying elements of it. Like your approach with Myth, I found
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed Tomb Raider, and I didn't find it
"too short" at all. I don't find Tomb Raider up to par specifically
with respect to replayability, because it's not sufficiently
openended. For example, block-pushing is not a very openended
activity. There's just one way to get out of room X, and for me the
fun is in figuring it out. Even a game with simple AI like Doom, say,
is quite a bit more openended, simply because there are different ways
to finish off the enemies. Tomb Raider 1 *was* like a movie, because
the same bad guys showed up at the the same time, each time, and went
through the same motions, each time (with some, but still minimal
response to your movements). It was very programmed. And she does
the aiming for you.
And what about that bear that comes out of nowhere in the first level
of TR1? That's not a question of skill - any "difficulty" resulting
from that it just a cheat on the part of the makers. There is *no*
defense against that sort of surprise the first time through. And
conversely, once you know exactly what's going to happen and are ready
for it, that's a cheat too (on your part), in that it's unlike a real
situation or a replayable game, which is unknown or in some way novel.
Even the ancient game "breakout" was more openended, because depending
on you play towards the end the remaining blocks took on new patterns
that required new techniques. There was no way to entirely anticipate
the situation in replay. Then (in TR1) there's the difficulty of
measuring distances and slope gradients (i.e., will I be able to stand
on a particular surface). At certain points I can't judge that a
particular jump will work out. Well, do I have low skill that needs
to improve? No, I simply haven't tried the jump. Once I try it I
discover whether it's doable or not. This is not the sort of
challenge that appeals to me, i.e., merely memorizing what's going to
happen and what can be done and then doing it. I like games whose
development can't be memorized.
To me the interest of Tomb Raider lies elsewhere, and that is in
discovery, e.g., the initial "aha" when I discover a new place, or
that two blocks pushed "just so" will allow me to escape a room.
>myself simply replaying levels (hell, I replayed the entire game several
>times from the beginning) just because I enjoyed playing the game. So I
>suppose this is just a matter of opinion. I love the basic gameplay in TR,
>including the fights, the simple tasks of climbing obstacles and navigating
>the environment, you don't.
I can understand that (it's kind of like watching a movie over and
over, which I have done with some favorites), and I would agree if you
were talking about a game like the Mario games, which require actual
skill, and not just memorization. (Heck, in TR you don't even have to
aim - Lara does that for you.)
>No offense, but IMHO, it sounds like you might be more interested in
>finishing Tomb Raider than you are in playing it. On the other hand, I might
No, and the reason is that I'm not in any contest with anyone. I'm
not trying to finish it first.
>have a similar attitude to Myth, wanting to just get to the end because I
>personally find the fights interesting the first couple of times, but boring
>after a while. On the other hand, if that happened to me, I'd just stop
>playing the game completely. It's fun and rewarding to get the end, but if
>the journey there wasn't entertaining I'm not going to take the time to do
>it. (BTW- No, I haven't played Myth, I was simply using it as an example).
I don't see why you'd stop playing a game even the first try if it
only got dull after the third or fourth try. Those are separate
things.
John Vivian Matthews
Thus Spake Patrick Dolan (patd...@concentric.net):
: Oddly enough, I find the basic gameplay of Tombraider to be so enjoyable, I
: don't mind replaying elements of it. Like your approach with Myth, I found
: times from the beginning) just because I enjoyed playing the game. So I
: suppose this is just a matter of opinion. I love the basic gameplay in TR,
: including the fights, the simple tasks of climbing obstacles and navigating
: the environment, you don't.
I too have replayed most of TR1 just for the fun of it. My challenge to myself
the second time around was to complete each level without saving at any
crystal...that is, don't save except at the ends of levels before the next
level loads. That made it much more difficult and I found new strategies for
handling enemies and obstacles because of that.
Quite frankly, I'm just pissed that I've got so much schoolwork right now
and can't enjoy playing Tomb Raider with my friends. :^(
Keith E. Young
William Murphy (metamu...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: I for one am not convinced of this. Restricted save-places do save
: memory, especially if they're implemented using level codes that you
: have to write down (this method requires no memory at all). On the
: PC, each Tombraider (I) savegame was about 10 kilobytes (I just
: checked one - still on my drive). An original Playstation memory card
: had 64 kilobytes (at most).
The Sony memory cards have 128K of FlashRAM.
Patrick Dolan
William Murphy wrote in message <3480153...@news.tiac.net>...
>On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:40:41 -0600, "Patrick Dolan"
><patd...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>(forgot this comment in my previous post)
>>Oddly enough, I find the basic gameplay of Tombraider to be so enjoyable,
I
>>don't mind replaying elements of it. Like your approach with Myth, I found
>
>Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed Tomb Raider, and I didn't find it
>"too short" at all. I don't find Tomb Raider up to par specifically
>with respect to replayability, because it's not sufficiently
>openended. For example, block-pushing is not a very openended
>activity. There's just one way to get out of room X, and for me the
>fun is in figuring it out. Even a game with simple AI like Doom, say,
>is quite a bit more openended, simply because there are different ways
>to finish off the enemies. Tomb Raider 1 *was* like a movie, because
>the same bad guys showed up at the the same time, each time, and went
>through the same motions, each time (with some, but still minimal
>response to your movements). It was very programmed. And she does
>the aiming for you.
>
Odd, I _did_ find it entertaining to try and kill the enemies in different
ways. You could take a safe "sniper" approach, try to outrun 'em, perform
jumps and flips to make your own John Woo movie, etc. I also tried to link
as many of my actions together as I could & see how fluidly I could
accomplish various tasks.
And I don't know about the PC version, but the PSX version had plenty of
unpredictible elements, especially in regard to creature movement. I still
find myself sneaking into one room in particular, because I never know which
door the darn bear is going to come out of. I know there are only two, but
they're far enough apart to make me nervous. And if I try to just bypass
him, he often nails me on the way back, having decided to leave his room for
a stroll around the pool...
>And what about that bear that comes out of nowhere in the first level
>of TR1? That's not a question of skill - any "difficulty" resulting
>from that it just a cheat on the part of the makers. There is *no*
>defense against that sort of surprise the first time through. And
>conversely, once you know exactly what's going to happen and are ready
>for it, that's a cheat too (on your part), in that it's unlike a real
>situation or a replayable game, which is unknown or in some way novel.
But I _didn't_ go back and replay that part of the game by reloading a save
point. I dealt with the bear as best I could, and pressed on. Was it a
surprise? Yes, it's supposed to be. But it is far from impossible to get
past
>Even the ancient game "breakout" was more openended, because depending
>on you play towards the end the remaining blocks took on new patterns
>that required new techniques. There was no way to entirely anticipate
>the situation in replay.
???? From what I see, your case is that Tomb Raider is too predictable in
replay. Well being able to save and restart whenever you want simply makes
that situation worse. "Baby stepping" through the game and replaying things
that were initially surprising doesn't exactly make the game harder to
anticipate. On the other hand, if the player must face a series of
challenges over a stretch of time before they can save, even having
knowledge of what is coming isn't always going to help them. It's easy to
forget that after jumping across the flaming pillars, fighting the bear and
trying not to step on the breakaway floor that there is a gunman waiting in
the next room.
> Then (in TR1) there's the difficulty of
>measuring distances and slope gradients (i.e., will I be able to stand
>on a particular surface). At certain points I can't judge that a
>particular jump will work out. Well, do I have low skill that needs
>to improve? No, I simply haven't tried the jump. Once I try it I
>discover whether it's doable or not.
I had very little difficulty figuring out jump distances after the first
level or two. It was simply a matter of learning to measure the distance
visually. I found that the designers were very fair in making sure that
distances weren't "just short" of my jump range. As for the slopes, a
similar judgement method was used when I was in danger of dying if I was
wrong. But again, the steep slopes tended to be placed in positions that
might inconvenience you, but would rarely kill you.
>This is not the sort of
>challenge that appeals to me, i.e., merely memorizing what's going to
>happen and what can be done and then doing it. I like games whose
>development can't be memorized.
>
All games can be memorized, that's how you master them. You must memorize
ranges, strengths of weapons, enemy lines of sight, location of powerups,
effects of various strategies,etc. A game that has no elements that can be
memorized is simply a collection of random events that you can't control
(knowledge of control is another form of memorization after all)
>To me the interest of Tomb Raider lies elsewhere, and that is in
>discovery, e.g., the initial "aha" when I discover a new place, or
>that two blocks pushed "just so" will allow me to escape a room.
>
Considering that is the part of the game that has the least amount of game
engine supporting it, I find this odd. I also like finding new areas and
solving puzzles, but the offer minor rewards and are far from the main point
of the game.
Frankly, I would never play a game whose only, or even primary, thrill was
merely seeing new things. I want a game I can _play_ and interact with. One
that gives me a flexible and intuitive control system so I can run, jump or
do whatever it is I can, without even thinking about it. I want to be _part_
of the game, interacting with it, not just an observer looking for new
visual treats. For that, I rent movies.
>>myself simply replaying levels (hell, I replayed the entire game several
>>times from the beginning) just because I enjoyed playing the game. So I
>>suppose this is just a matter of opinion. I love the basic gameplay in TR,
>>including the fights, the simple tasks of climbing obstacles and
navigating
>>the environment, you don't.
>
>I can understand that (it's kind of like watching a movie over and
>over, which I have done with some favorites), and I would agree if you
>were talking about a game like the Mario games, which require actual
>skill, and not just memorization. (Heck, in TR you don't even have to
>aim - Lara does that for you.)
>
But it _does_ require skill. Granted, you can play by trial and error (a
method that saving at any point strongly supports), but you'd be far better
off learning how to play the game and interact with it properly.
As for the aiming, while it is "automatic" (you can choose your target you
know), you still have to use skill during combat if you plan on living very
long. You have to be running, jumping and flipping around your opponents,
while trying to keep them in your front 180 degree arc. You also have to
learn when to switch targets during your acrobatics, as well as still judge
where you are in the environment in case you need to beat a hasty retreat.
Bear in mind that this is a different type of combat, it isn't the sort of
sniping you see in Doom or Quake, it's more along the lines of a playable
version of a John Woo movie. If you don't learn to play it properly, you'll
never really enjoy it.
>>No offense, but IMHO, it sounds like you might be more interested in
>>finishing Tomb Raider than you are in playing it. On the other hand, I
might
>
>No, and the reason is that I'm not in any contest with anyone. I'm
>not trying to finish it first.
>
I dunno, your comment about "wanting to see new things" sounds like you have
more interest in advancing in the game than in actually playing it. And you
certainly don't sound like you enjoy playing the game itself.
>>have a similar attitude to Myth, wanting to just get to the end because I
>>personally find the fights interesting the first couple of times, but
boring
>>after a while. On the other hand, if that happened to me, I'd just stop
>>playing the game completely. It's fun and rewarding to get the end, but if
>>the journey there wasn't entertaining I'm not going to take the time to do
>>it. (BTW- No, I haven't played Myth, I was simply using it as an example).
>
>I don't see why you'd stop playing a game even the first try if it
>only got dull after the third or fourth try. Those are separate
>things.
>
Simple. If I'm getting bored, I'm not enjoying myself. A well-designed game
is fun to simply _play_, whether you are seeing new things or not. Any game,
no matter how horrid it is, can offer new things to see on each level. Many
of them can make each individual level, in and of itself, playable enough so
you don't get bored while you wait to see the next level.
However, I don't find that any reward. I bought something to play, not
something to simply wade through to see new things. If a game can provide me
with an entertaining core engine, I'll happily play the same level over and
over and over. I may get frustrated or annoyed, but I'll still play the game
and enjoy myself. Hell, I don't even really care if there isn't anything
much to see as I advance through the game, so long as I'm having fun
playing.
If a game isn't fun to play repeatedly on a single level, I won't bother
playing it through to the ending. Why? Because the game isn't, at heart, fun
to play. I don't care how many levels it has, how "engrossing" of a
storyline it weaves, or how many new things get introduced, I just want the
core game to be _fun_.
I think we are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this. You play
to see what comes next, I simply play in order to play.
William Murphy
On 26 Nov 1997 16:25:17 GMT, kyo...@f1n06.kent.edu (Keith E. Young)
wrote:
I read a claim that at one point a single card had 64k. More spacious
cards have doubtlessly appeared. I saw one advertised (non-Sony-made,
but for the Playstation) as having 1 megabyte.
William Murphy
>
>
>Odd, I _did_ find it entertaining to try and kill the enemies in different
>ways. You could take a safe "sniper" approach, try to outrun 'em, perform
>jumps and flips to make your own John Woo movie, etc. I also tried to link
>as many of my actions together as I could & see how fluidly I could
>accomplish various tasks.
Yes, there is some small interest to the fights. Nothing like in real
combat games, though. Oh, another good recent title: Uprising.
>And I don't know about the PC version, but the PSX version had plenty of
>unpredictible elements, especially in regard to creature movement. I still
>find myself sneaking into one room in particular, because I never know which
>door the darn bear is going to come out of. I know there are only two, but
>they're far enough apart to make me nervous. And if I try to just bypass
>him, he often nails me on the way back, having decided to leave his room for
>a stroll around the pool...
Huh, maybe. I don't really remember. It's been a while. If so,
that's baby-steps in the right direction combat-wise, and I wouldn't
mind seeing it enhanced.
>>And what about that bear that comes out of nowhere in the first level
>>of TR1? That's not a question of skill - any "difficulty" resulting
>>from that it just a cheat on the part of the makers. There is *no*
>>defense against that sort of surprise the first time through. And
>>conversely, once you know exactly what's going to happen and are ready
>>for it, that's a cheat too (on your part), in that it's unlike a real
>>situation or a replayable game, which is unknown or in some way novel.
>
>But I _didn't_ go back and replay that part of the game by reloading a save
>point. I dealt with the bear as best I could, and pressed on. Was it a
>surprise? Yes, it's supposed to be. But it is far from impossible to get
>past
It's irrelevant whether you survived the encounter. The problem is
that much of whatever difficulty there is, is due to the surprise, as
opposed to the fighting prowess of the bear. A surprise which is gone
the second time. The bear is much easier to polish off once you know
he's coming. Hence the low level of replayability. I'm trying to
explain what I mean when I say the game is not high on my list
replayable titles.
However, the fights are the least of Tomb Raider's problems with
unreplayability. They are actually mildly challenging the second time
through. The real problem is the block-pushing and jumping, because
there is zero challenge the second time through, and according to you
zero challenge even the first time through, since you have no problem
judging distances.
>>Even the ancient game "breakout" was more openended, because depending
>>on you play towards the end the remaining blocks took on new patterns
>>that required new techniques. There was no way to entirely anticipate
>>the situation in replay.
>
>
>???? From what I see, your case is that Tomb Raider is too predictable in
>replay. Well being able to save and restart whenever you want simply makes
>that situation worse. "Baby stepping" through the game and replaying things
>that were initially surprising doesn't exactly make the game harder to
>anticipate.
No, I save *after* the boring stuff. So I don't have to go through it
again. I almost never redo something that would provide zero
challenge the second time through.
On the other hand, if the player must face a series of
>challenges over a stretch of time before they can save, even having
>knowledge of what is coming isn't always going to help them. It's easy to
>forget that after jumping across the flaming pillars, fighting the bear and
>trying not to step on the breakaway floor that there is a gunman waiting in
>the next room.
Since most fights
>> Then (in TR1) there's the difficulty of
>>measuring distances and slope gradients (i.e., will I be able to stand
>>on a particular surface). At certain points I can't judge that a
>>particular jump will work out. Well, do I have low skill that needs
>>to improve? No, I simply haven't tried the jump. Once I try it I
>>discover whether it's doable or not.
>
>I had very little difficulty figuring out jump distances after the first
>level or two. It was simply a matter of learning to measure the distance
>visually. I found that the designers were very fair in making sure that
>distances weren't "just short" of my jump range. As for the slopes, a
>similar judgement method was used when I was in danger of dying if I was
>wrong. But again, the steep slopes tended to be placed in positions that
>might inconvenience you, but would rarely kill you.
Sure, over 90% of the time I have no difficulty. Sometimes I did.
For example, you may remember the cave with the colossal Sphinx in it.
A couple of those jumps were iffy, because the destinations were on a
lower level from oneself. But actually you can get through the game
without even experimenting, so Playstation players (who according to
the maker played it much safer than us PC gamers) may not even know
what I'm talking about. A more recent example is in the unstable roof
tiles of the Opera House. I wasn't able to judge initially how I
would have to time my jumps to get across, or even what my destination
was, since there was quite a distance to cross. But once I had done
it, I was able to repeat it infallibly - something that cannot be said
of beating Kasparov. Beating him the first time is no guarantee of
beating him the second. Same with Breakout, Doom, Myth, etc. But
that's okay, since Tomb Raider offers up something quite different.
>>This is not the sort of
>>challenge that appeals to me, i.e., merely memorizing what's going to
>>happen and what can be done and then doing it. I like games whose
>>development can't be memorized.
>>
>
>All games can be memorized, that's how you master them.
There is an amount of memorization. But there is also
unpredictability. Go ahead, try to memorize Kasparov's gameplay, and
then call him up and beat him at his own game. Unfortunately, there
is much more predictability in Tomb Raider the second time through,
than there is in Kasparov, the second time through.
>Considering that is the part of the game that has the least amount of game
>engine supporting it, I find this odd. I also like finding new areas and
>solving puzzles, but the offer minor rewards and are far from the main point
>of the game.
Which is what, combat? Then you should agree with me. Why waste time
refinding new areas and resolving puzzles, since that offers "minor
rewards", when you can simply save at the beginning of one of the
fight sequences?
>Frankly, I would never play a game whose only, or even primary, thrill was
>merely seeing new things. I want a game I can _play_ and interact with. One
>that gives me a flexible and intuitive control system so I can run, jump or
>do whatever it is I can, without even thinking about it. I want to be _part_
>of the game, interacting with it, not just an observer looking for new
>visual treats. For that, I rent movies.
One word: puzzles. But I loved Myst, and maybe you wouldn't.
>>>myself simply replaying levels (hell, I replayed the entire game several
>>>times from the beginning) just because I enjoyed playing the game. So I
>>>suppose this is just a matter of opinion. I love the basic gameplay in TR,
>>>including the fights, the simple tasks of climbing obstacles and
>navigating
>>>the environment, you don't.
>>
>>I can understand that (it's kind of like watching a movie over and
>>over, which I have done with some favorites), and I would agree if you
>>were talking about a game like the Mario games, which require actual
>>skill, and not just memorization. (Heck, in TR you don't even have to
>>aim - Lara does that for you.)
>>
>
>But it _does_ require skill. Granted, you can play by trial and error (a
>method that saving at any point strongly supports), but you'd be far better
>off learning how to play the game and interact with it properly.
Most of the game requires no skill that I can detect. 90% of the
time, I have zero problem moving blocks, and zero problem repeating a
perfect jump endlessly. Since I have zero problem with these, they
are not challenges, and I don't feel challenged.
>As for the aiming, while it is "automatic" (you can choose your target you
>know), you still have to use skill during combat if you plan on living very
>long. You have to be running, jumping and flipping around your opponents,
>while trying to keep them in your front 180 degree arc. You also have to
>learn when to switch targets during your acrobatics, as well as still judge
>where you are in the environment in case you need to beat a hasty retreat.
Since I replay whole fight sequences (as I imagine most PC players
do), which are mildly challenging, requiring some small amount of
skill, and I therefore do not save in the middle of a fight, I know
some techniques, such as jumping backwards while firing, jumping to
the side to avoid projectiles, circling the enemy, finding a high
place from which to snipe, etc. What would bother me is having to
replay, not only the challenging fight, but also the totally
unchallenging stuff like moving blocks and jumping somewhere that I
already know I will have 100% chance of success jumping to.
>
>Bear in mind that this is a different type of combat, it isn't the sort of
>sniping you see in Doom or Quake, it's more along the lines of a playable
>version of a John Woo movie. If you don't learn to play it properly, you'll
>never really enjoy it.
It's not impossible that I'm better at fighting than you, since I
tended to replay a fight sequence (from the beginning) many, many
times (pride required it), something I would not be able to do on a
Playstation in the same amount of time, because of the time taken by
all the now-boring stuff like moving blocks.
>>>No offense, but IMHO, it sounds like you might be more interested in
>>>finishing Tomb Raider than you are in playing it. On the other hand, I
>might
>>
>>No, and the reason is that I'm not in any contest with anyone. I'm
>>not trying to finish it first.
>>
>
>I dunno, your comment about "wanting to see new things" sounds like you have
>more interest in advancing in the game than in actually playing it. And you
>certainly don't sound like you enjoy playing the game itself.
If I don't laugh the second time I hear a joke, that doesn't mean I
didn't laugh the first time. If knowning what's going to happen hurts
a moviegoing experience for me (and so I don't want to be told what
will happen), that doesn't mean I won't enjoy the movie the first time
I see it. Etc. Replayability is distinct from playability. Perhaps
it would illuminate the issue if I told you I loved Myth. I like
puzzles, and I like solving puzzles. But puzzles are not
"replayable", since I can't solve the same puzzle twice - because I
already know the solution. I see Tombraider as a puzzle game.
>>>have a similar attitude to Myth, wanting to just get to the end because I
>>>personally find the fights interesting the first couple of times, but
>boring
>>>after a while. On the other hand, if that happened to me, I'd just stop
>>>playing the game completely. It's fun and rewarding to get the end, but if
>>>the journey there wasn't entertaining I'm not going to take the time to do
>>>it. (BTW- No, I haven't played Myth, I was simply using it as an example).
>>
>>I don't see why you'd stop playing a game even the first try if it
>>only got dull after the third or fourth try. Those are separate
>>things.
>>
>
>Simple. If I'm getting bored, I'm not enjoying myself.
The premise is, I'm not getting bored the first couple times through.
Therefore, I'm enjoying myself the first couple times through. And
yet in my shoes you're saying that you would deny yourself the
enjoyment.
>A well-designed game
>is fun to simply _play_, whether you are seeing new things or not. Any game,
>no matter how horrid it is, can offer new things to see on each level. Many
>of them can make each individual level, in and of itself, playable enough so
>you don't get bored while you wait to see the next level.
Tombraider is in my opinion unsurpassed in "offering new things to see
on each level". Saying that "any game" *can* do it is idle, since no
game has ever done it this well.
William Murphy
>If I don't laugh the second time I hear a joke, that doesn't mean I
>didn't laugh the first time. If knowning what's going to happen hurts
>a moviegoing experience for me (and so I don't want to be told what
>will happen), that doesn't mean I won't enjoy the movie the first time
>I see it. Etc. Replayability is distinct from playability. Perhaps
>it would illuminate the issue if I told you I loved Myth. I like
>puzzles, and I like solving puzzles.
Oops, sorry, I meant Myst. Names very similar, me get confused.
Aside: I made it past Venice swimming under the mines, but then found
myself in a powerboat. Maybe that's a bug, a loophole that I
blundered into.
One who knows
Tengu <te...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<MPG.ee3f8d57...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> In article <8803896...@dejanews.com>,
> joe.c...@mail.sprintranet.com says...
<snipped for space>
> > * Only 3 secrets per level?? And this time you KNOW what you are
looking
> > for?? That certainly takes the fun out of it. In the first game, part
of
> > the fun was exploring every nook and cranny, finding secret passages
and
> > rooms that were secret themselves. You never knew when you might climb
up
> > somewhere and here the special music announcing a secret. Now it's "oh
> > there's one of those statues... big whoop." Once you've found all 3
you
> > know there's nothing left to look forward to on that level. Bleah.
>
> I like the secrets in TR2 better. What the big deal about finding
> a secret area if all you get is a first aid kit? In the first game, the
> secrets seemed much too played up- what's so great about finding a little
> extra ammo? IMO, the dragons are kind of cool. Why go searching around
> for a magnum clip when you can go searching for a jade dragon? Let the
> prey fit the hunt, I say.
>
And if you get the first three, you get the grenade launcher. Find 3 more
and get more grenades.
> > * On the Playstation version, TONS of graphics glitches. The first one
> > looked much better in terms of solid graphics. Now there are seams
> > between the polygon walls, dead enemies fall half-in/half-out of walls,
> > Lara disappears into walls. Ugh.
>
> I haven't played the PSX version, so I can't comment. I've
> noticed some clipping problems on the PC version too, though. (You know-
> the clipping problems Eidos said they had fixed entirely.)
So, when did Eidos say that?
>
> > * Enough of the Venice level already!! The Great Wall started out good,
> > exploring caves and dank, dark, passageways. One level and ZIP your
off
> > to Venice, to spend what seems like forever walking around city
streets.
> > What is this, Resident Evil 2?? Bring back the mystique of forgotten
> > worlds...
>
> I agree there, too. The Venice levels strike me as too dark, too
> repetitive, or both combined. I'd rather have had the Great Wall level
> be a bit larger too.
>
>
> Tengu:<>
>
Patrick Dolan
William Murphy wrote in message <3483af78...@news.tiac.net>...
>On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 14:16:26 -0600, "Patrick Dolan"
><patd...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>>And what about that bear that comes out of nowhere in the first level
>>>of TR1? That's not a question of skill - any "difficulty" resulting
>>>from that it just a cheat on the part of the makers. There is *no*
>>>defense against that sort of surprise the first time through. And
>>>conversely, once you know exactly what's going to happen and are ready
>>>for it, that's a cheat too (on your part), in that it's unlike a real
>>>situation or a replayable game, which is unknown or in some way novel.
>>
>>But I _didn't_ go back and replay that part of the game by reloading a
save
>>point. I dealt with the bear as best I could, and pressed on. Was it a
>>surprise? Yes, it's supposed to be. But it is far from impossible to get
>>past
>
>It's irrelevant whether you survived the encounter. The problem is
>that much of whatever difficulty there is, is due to the surprise, as
>opposed to the fighting prowess of the bear. A surprise which is gone
>the second time. The bear is much easier to polish off once you know
>he's coming. Hence the low level of replayability. I'm trying to
>explain what I mean when I say the game is not high on my list
>replayable titles.
>
Easier yes, less enjoyable, no. Besides, as I stated, the critters _aren't_
always in the same place each time you play. You may now they are in the
area, but you don't always know exactly where they are. Either way, it
doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the game in the slightest.
>However, the fights are the least of Tomb Raider's problems with
>unreplayability. They are actually mildly challenging the second time
>through. The real problem is the block-pushing and jumping, because
>there is zero challenge the second time through, and according to you
>zero challenge even the first time through, since you have no problem
>judging distances.
>
The challenge is when they combine several elements you are familiar with in
a different pattern. Granted, you'll still know what's coming up the next
time you play, but by mixing the elements in a diverse manner you are still
kept somewhat off balance. And if you don't have a photographic memory, odds
are you won't remember the entire sequence correctly.
As for the block pushing, I guess I never really thought of it as being
especially challenging anyway. I just do it and go on. Of course, I tend to
push my luck and try to put the blocks _just barely_ in range for my jumps
(and this got me into trouble a couple of times, as it turned out I didn't
move the darn thing far enough to get through some opening or another).
>>>Even the ancient game "breakout" was more openended, because depending
>>>on you play towards the end the remaining blocks took on new patterns
>>>that required new techniques. There was no way to entirely anticipate
>>>the situation in replay.
>>
>>
>>???? From what I see, your case is that Tomb Raider is too predictable in
>>replay. Well being able to save and restart whenever you want simply makes
>>that situation worse. "Baby stepping" through the game and replaying
things
>>that were initially surprising doesn't exactly make the game harder to
>>anticipate.
>
>No, I save *after* the boring stuff. So I don't have to go through it
>again. I almost never redo something that would provide zero
>challenge the second time through.
>
I guess you are equating fun with challenging (or at least challenge=not
boring). That's not what gets me to play a game, I simply enjoy the
interactive experience and control that I have within the gaming
environment. That, first and foremost, is what I want in a game.
??? You are equating a game of pure strategy with one that is pure action. A
game of pure strategy has relatively little memorization if it's designed
well (a category I think Chess would fall into), and it rarely makes an
effort to integrate the player into the game environment, creating the
illusion that they are "there".
FWIW, I find the core game "mechanics" of chess to be painfully boring (pick
up a piece and move it...opponent does same....repeat)...:) However, as a
pure strategy game, it isn't supposed to "suspend my disbelief" or offer me
a dynamic interface with which to interact with the game world.
>>Considering that is the part of the game that has the least amount of game
>>engine supporting it, I find this odd. I also like finding new areas and
>>solving puzzles, but the offer minor rewards and are far from the main
point
>>of the game.
>
>Which is what, combat? Then you should agree with me. Why waste time
>refinding new areas and resolving puzzles, since that offers "minor
>rewards", when you can simply save at the beginning of one of the
>fight sequences?
>
Actually, navigation of the environment is the number one element of the
game, IMHO. Followed by combat, then puzzle solving and discovering new
areas/levels. As to the rest of your comment, why would I want to save at
the beginning of one of the fight sequences? It's not nearly as rewarding to
win a combat when I know I'm not really in any danger of losing. If I have
to go back to my last save point (which could be a considerable distance
back), I have much more a feeling of threat, and a greater feeling of
accomplishment when I win. Also, if I lose I can always re-explore on my way
back to the combat and see if I missed anything, or try to keep more health
for the coming fight by being more cautious.
>>Frankly, I would never play a game whose only, or even primary, thrill was
>>merely seeing new things. I want a game I can _play_ and interact with.
One
>>that gives me a flexible and intuitive control system so I can run, jump
or
>>do whatever it is I can, without even thinking about it. I want to be
_part_
>>of the game, interacting with it, not just an observer looking for new
>>visual treats. For that, I rent movies.
>
>One word: puzzles. But I loved Myst, and maybe you wouldn't.
>
Actually, I truly hated that game...Puzzles are one thing, but trying to mix
and match as many genres as they did, while creating the illusion that you
were actually on an "adventure" of some type left me cold. And talk about
lack of control or variable outcomes...Sheesh.
Besides which, puzzles by their very nature, are completely repetitive,
never offering anything new when you replay them. Once you know where the
pieces go, nothing will ever change. I find it odd that you don't like Tomb
Raiders puzzles because of this, but bring up puzzles in general as an
argument. Or are you referring to puzzle/arcade games like Tetris?
>>>>myself simply replaying levels (hell, I replayed the entire game several
>>>>times from the beginning) just because I enjoyed playing the game. So I
>>>>suppose this is just a matter of opinion. I love the basic gameplay in
TR,
>>>>including the fights, the simple tasks of climbing obstacles and
>>navigating
>>>>the environment, you don't.
>>>
>>>I can understand that (it's kind of like watching a movie over and
>>>over, which I have done with some favorites), and I would agree if you
>>>were talking about a game like the Mario games, which require actual
>>>skill, and not just memorization. (Heck, in TR you don't even have to
>>>aim - Lara does that for you.)
>>>
>>
>>But it _does_ require skill. Granted, you can play by trial and error (a
>>method that saving at any point strongly supports), but you'd be far
better
>>off learning how to play the game and interact with it properly.
>
>Most of the game requires no skill that I can detect. 90% of the
>time, I have zero problem moving blocks, and zero problem repeating a
>perfect jump endlessly. Since I have zero problem with these, they
>are not challenges, and I don't feel challenged.
>
Well, again I don't consider challenge to be the same as fun. I enjoy the
fact that I have mastered the basic control and can navigate with relative
ease through portions of the game. The tricky bit comes when they start
adding further variables to the mix. So you can make every jump safely, eh?
Okay, here's a series of pillars to jump across...One catch, they have flame
generators on top that will go off occasionally....have fun!
>>As for the aiming, while it is "automatic" (you can choose your target you
>>know), you still have to use skill during combat if you plan on living
very
>>long. You have to be running, jumping and flipping around your opponents,
>>while trying to keep them in your front 180 degree arc. You also have to
>>learn when to switch targets during your acrobatics, as well as still
judge
>>where you are in the environment in case you need to beat a hasty retreat.
>
>Since I replay whole fight sequences (as I imagine most PC players
>do), which are mildly challenging, requiring some small amount of
>skill, and I therefore do not save in the middle of a fight, I know
>some techniques, such as jumping backwards while firing, jumping to
>the side to avoid projectiles, circling the enemy, finding a high
>place from which to snipe, etc. What would bother me is having to
>replay, not only the challenging fight, but also the totally
>unchallenging stuff like moving blocks and jumping somewhere that I
>already know I will have 100% chance of success jumping to.
>
Again, while that may not be challenging, I disagree that it isn't fun. I
like simply wandering around the environment and interacting with it. I
honestly don't find it as boring as you do, so it doesn't bother me in the
least. Besides, I may find something I didn't on the first pass through, or
may be a bit more careful with my acrobatics so I've got a bit more health
for the upcoming fight.
>>
>>Bear in mind that this is a different type of combat, it isn't the sort of
>>sniping you see in Doom or Quake, it's more along the lines of a playable
>>version of a John Woo movie. If you don't learn to play it properly,
you'll
>>never really enjoy it.
>
>It's not impossible that I'm better at fighting than you, since I
>tended to replay a fight sequence (from the beginning) many, many
>times (pride required it), something I would not be able to do on a
>Playstation in the same amount of time, because of the time taken by
>all the now-boring stuff like moving blocks.
>
Sounds to me like TR simply isn't your cup of tea. If you want pure combat
with no "boring" stuff like block moving and/or exploring, then you'd be
better off with Doom or Quake. OTOH, I like both genres, so I'll happily
play them for their different approaches.
>>>>No offense, but IMHO, it sounds like you might be more interested in
>>>>finishing Tomb Raider than you are in playing it. On the other hand, I
>>might
>>>
>>>No, and the reason is that I'm not in any contest with anyone. I'm
>>>not trying to finish it first.
>>>
>>
>>I dunno, your comment about "wanting to see new things" sounds like you
have
>>more interest in advancing in the game than in actually playing it. And
you
>>certainly don't sound like you enjoy playing the game itself.
>
>If I don't laugh the second time I hear a joke, that doesn't mean I
>didn't laugh the first time. If knowning what's going to happen hurts
>a moviegoing experience for me (and so I don't want to be told what
>will happen), that doesn't mean I won't enjoy the movie the first time
>I see it. Etc. Replayability is distinct from playability. Perhaps
>it would illuminate the issue if I told you I loved Myth. I like
>puzzles, and I like solving puzzles. But puzzles are not
>"replayable", since I can't solve the same puzzle twice - because I
>already know the solution. I see Tombraider as a puzzle game.
>
Well, that could be your problem then....After all, while it does have
puzzles, it's also an exploration game and a combat game, all rolled into a
new genre. As for your other comments, my question was: Do you enjoy the
playing the game? It's very hard to qualify this, I'll admit. I've been a
game designer for many years and I still can't pigeonhole what makes a game
"fun" in a technical sense. Best description I've found is that it's a
mixture of control, interactivity and immersiveness. If a game does these
things well, it will be fun to play. Challenge and non-repetitiveness are
completely different animals. If a game is fun, it can often get by without
much of a challenge, or without changing things each time you play. On the
other hand, if a game isn't fun to play, it doesn't matter how "challenging"
it is, or how radically different it is with each replay, it's not going to
last.
Games can easily make a big splash by simply offering new graphics, new
tricks, and enough "challenge" that players can't get through them during a
rental, but they have no staying power, no appeal that gets players to pull
them out time after time.
From the developers point of view, it's much simpler to create a "hook" for
a game by simply dangling the promise of something "new" right around the
corner than to create long term appeal by making it fun to play on a core
level. Tweaking a game to get the balance "just right" and make the game
entertaining to simply play, without regard to rewards, levels or randomness
of the challenge takes too much time, pushes titles past target release
dates, and worse yet, doesn't provide new pretty things for the publisher to
look at so he won't bitch about paying for the next milestone (publishers
often seem to only think work is being done if something completely new has
been added since the last milestone. They apparantly feel that once
something is in the game, it doesn't need any tweaking).
>>>>have a similar attitude to Myth, wanting to just get to the end because
I
>>>>personally find the fights interesting the first couple of times, but
>>boring
>>>>after a while. On the other hand, if that happened to me, I'd just stop
>>>>playing the game completely. It's fun and rewarding to get the end, but
if
>>>>the journey there wasn't entertaining I'm not going to take the time to
do
>>>>it. (BTW- No, I haven't played Myth, I was simply using it as an
example).
>>>
>>>I don't see why you'd stop playing a game even the first try if it
>>>only got dull after the third or fourth try. Those are separate
>>>things.
>>>
>>
>>Simple. If I'm getting bored, I'm not enjoying myself.
>
>The premise is, I'm not getting bored the first couple times through.
>Therefore, I'm enjoying myself the first couple times through. And
>yet in my shoes you're saying that you would deny yourself the
>enjoyment.
The difference is, you find the _challenge_ to be the fun part. As long as
you are challenged, you aren't bored. I find the interaction with the game
environment to be the fun part. If it isn't implemented well, I don't enjoy
it, and I get bored. Dangling the promise of more levels for a game engine I
don't like playing isn't really going to get me to keep playing the game.
As a result, I find that I can play games pretty much forever if I enjoy the
interaction I'm experiencing. It doesn't matter if it isn't challenging any
more, or doesn't offer anything I haven't seen a dozen times. I enjoy the
act of _playing_ the game more than facing its challenges or seeing new
elements. Because lets face it, eventually you _will_ see everything, and
you _won't_ find it challenging anymore (even if the challenges are random,
you will become skillful enough so it isn't a problem). In this case, so
long as the core game is fun to play, I'll still play it. If it isn't, I
probably stopped playing it a long time ago.
>
>>A well-designed game
>>is fun to simply _play_, whether you are seeing new things or not. Any
game,
>>no matter how horrid it is, can offer new things to see on each level.
Many
>>of them can make each individual level, in and of itself, playable enough
so
>>you don't get bored while you wait to see the next level.
>
>Tombraider is in my opinion unsurpassed in "offering new things to see
>on each level". Saying that "any game" *can* do it is idle, since no
>game has ever done it this well.
>
Doom, Quake, Hexen, Duke Nukem, any FMV game, Super Mario64, Donkey Kong
Racing, Goldeneye, most any RPG for a console or PC, Ultima Online, Croc,
etc, etc, etc. Quantity of things to see does not equal a good game.
Sometimes, it's used to simply disguise a bad game.
Tomb Raiders breakthrough was combining a large explorable world with much
more complex interaction than had been done before. Up until that point, you
couldn't jump, climb, flip, dive or even swim through a complex and
interesting world. You simply plodded along on the ground and fell off of
ledges. If you were lucky, you could sort of bob through the water. That was
the breakthrough element in TR.
TR wouldn't have been nearly as good, and probably wouldn't have been nearly
as popular, if it had simply used Doom controls, allowing only very limited
interaction with the environment, even if it had the same scenery.
Initially, there would have been a big surge of popularity as people were
presented with a new game with a sexy woman as the lead character. And as
long as they found something new to look at as they went through, they'd
probably be happy. Then, after the initial wave of popularity had died down,
it would be forgotten and unplayed. It certainly wouldn't be the veritable
classic game it is today.
Billy Bissette
William Murphy <metamu...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed Tomb Raider, and I didn't find it
> "too short" at all. I don't find Tomb Raider up to par specifically
> with respect to replayability, because it's not sufficiently
> openended. For example, block-pushing is not a very openended
> activity. There's just one way to get out of room X, and for me the
> fun is in figuring it out. Even a game with simple AI like Doom, say,
> is quite a bit more openended, simply because there are different ways
> to finish off the enemies. Tomb Raider 1 *was* like a movie, because
> the same bad guys showed up at the the same time, each time, and went
> through the same motions, each time (with some, but still minimal
> response to your movements). It was very programmed. And she does
> the aiming for you.
Well, I'd say it was more like a giant puzzle. Even killing things
often had puzzle elements, at least if it didn't die in a couple of
shots.
> And what about that bear that comes out of nowhere in the first level
> of TR1? That's not a question of skill - any "difficulty" resulting
> from that it just a cheat on the part of the makers. There is *no*
> defense against that sort of surprise the first time through.
There's a defense. It's called reflexes and control. One test of
TR1 was to get through such events not only without dieing, but without
having to heal too much. You could avoid the bear when you see it, or
go for cover the moment you hear it (it didn't exactly sound like a
dog or bat you know). The escape I took was to jump in the water. A
friend made it to the upper section in the 'stable,' for the easy kill.
Another friend managed to avoid and eventually kill it without trying
to escape first. Of course I know many who didn't respond quickly or
sensibly enough and were killed...
> And
> conversely, once you know exactly what's going to happen and are ready
> for it, that's a cheat too (on your part), in that it's unlike a real
> situation or a replayable game, which is unknown or in some way novel.
You ever watch someone get killed by that bear, then go in expecting it,
only to get mauled in the back because it had wandered around behind
Lara because the player expected it in the same location? :P
Of course that "cheat" is a factor of the game, it makes up for people
who may not quite have the reflexes, cool or luck to make it through
a situation on the first attempt. After they die, they can think and
reason a better approach, which still may not work. What's particularly
entertaining is that for many monsters and traps there are more than
one way to get through them. Plus there is that extra thrill of making
it through an unexpected situation on the first try... :)
> Even the ancient game "breakout" was more openended, because depending
> on you play towards the end the remaining blocks took on new patterns
> that required new techniques. There was no way to entirely anticipate
> the situation in replay.
Unless you were good with geometry/trig...
> Then (in TR1) there's the difficulty of
> measuring distances and slope gradients (i.e., will I be able to stand
> on a particular surface). At certain points I can't judge that a
> particular jump will work out. Well, do I have low skill that needs
> to improve? No, I simply haven't tried the jump. Once I try it I
> discover whether it's doable or not.
Slopes are fairly easy, and by St. Francis you should be able to judge
most any jump in the game. Doesn't mean you won't screw it up though...
And it doesn't mean that jump should even be made that way.
> This is not the sort of
> challenge that appeals to me, i.e., merely memorizing what's going to
> happen and what can be done and then doing it. I like games whose
> development can't be memorized.
TR1 was a puzzle game first and foremost. Admittedly a puzzle game with
rather spectacular success/failure in cases (Lara completely a series
of jumps, back-flips, slides, gunshots and safely landed...or missing
and breaking her neck), but a puzzle game no less. And its fairly open
for a puzzle game. (not talking about the simple block pushing puzzles)
> To me the interest of Tomb Raider lies elsewhere, and that is in
> discovery, e.g., the initial "aha" when I discover a new place, or
> that two blocks pushed "just so" will allow me to escape a room.
>
> >myself simply replaying levels (hell, I replayed the entire game several
> >times from the beginning) just because I enjoyed playing the game. So I
> >suppose this is just a matter of opinion. I love the basic gameplay in TR,
> >including the fights, the simple tasks of climbing obstacles and navigating
> >the environment, you don't.
>
> I can understand that (it's kind of like watching a movie over and
> over, which I have done with some favorites), and I would agree if you
> were talking about a game like the Mario games, which require actual
> skill, and not just memorization. (Heck, in TR you don't even have to
> aim - Lara does that for you.)
What Mario games required skill? Those I remember were pretty much
memorization exercises. Remember the power-up locations, locations of
enemies (they were always in the same place, they didn't even have a
chance to wander outside of your view, and were always predictable).
Remember the pattern of enemies. Remember basically everything.
> >No offense, but IMHO, it sounds like you might be more interested in
> >finishing Tomb Raider than you are in playing it. On the other hand, I might
>
> No, and the reason is that I'm not in any contest with anyone. I'm
> not trying to finish it first.
I don't think that was the point. No one claimed you were racing to
finish it, just that you were more interested in beating it than
experiencing it. That has nothing to do with beating it faster than
someone else.
> >have a similar attitude to Myth, wanting to just get to the end because I
> >personally find the fights interesting the first couple of times, but boring
> >after a while. On the other hand, if that happened to me, I'd just stop
> >playing the game completely. It's fun and rewarding to get the end, but if
> >the journey there wasn't entertaining I'm not going to take the time to do
> >it. (BTW- No, I haven't played Myth, I was simply using it as an example).
>
> I don't see why you'd stop playing a game even the first try if it
> only got dull after the third or fourth try. Those are separate
> things.
Again you apparently misunderstand a point. The person was basically
saying the game was interesting to begin with, but soon became dull and
repetitious. Since he was more interested in having fun along the
way than in simply trying to beat it, he quit. The game had become
an effort to continue, not a matter of difficulty, but simply a matter
of boredom. When a game becomes a plodding effort to play with no joy,
what's the point to continue, except to simply beat the game. If your
main goal is to play, experience and have fun with the game, then
simply beating such a game is not reason to continue to play until the
eventual "victory".
urban
Patrick Dolan wrote:
> >>* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it. I
>
Real simple solution to that... Don't use it !!!!! I like the option myself,
you can set you own challenge level that way...
William Murphy
On 27 Nov 1997 05:53:23 GMT, "Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com>
wrote:
>William Murphy <metamu...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed Tomb Raider, and I didn't find it
>> "too short" at all. I don't find Tomb Raider up to par specifically
>> with respect to replayability, because it's not sufficiently
>> openended. For example, block-pushing is not a very openended
>> activity. There's just one way to get out of room X, and for me the
>> fun is in figuring it out. Even a game with simple AI like Doom, say,
>> is quite a bit more openended, simply because there are different ways
>> to finish off the enemies. Tomb Raider 1 *was* like a movie, because
>> the same bad guys showed up at the the same time, each time, and went
>> through the same motions, each time (with some, but still minimal
>> response to your movements). It was very programmed. And she does
>> the aiming for you.
>
> Well, I'd say it was more like a giant puzzle. Even killing things
>often had puzzle elements, at least if it didn't die in a couple of
>shots.
Exactly, that's how I think of tombraider, and I have explicitly
stated this, so essentially you are agreeing with me.
>> And what about that bear that comes out of nowhere in the first level
>> of TR1? That's not a question of skill - any "difficulty" resulting
>> from that it just a cheat on the part of the makers. There is *no*
>> defense against that sort of surprise the first time through.
>
> There's a defense. It's called reflexes and control.
My apologies, I wasn't clear. It's fun to get surprises - heck, isn't
that what exciting movies do, too? I have consistently said that I
love the game's playability. What I'm talking about is replayability.
Once you know approximately where and when the bear will appear, it's
much easier.
>> And
>> conversely, once you know exactly what's going to happen and are ready
>> for it, that's a cheat too (on your part), in that it's unlike a real
>> situation or a replayable game, which is unknown or in some way novel.
>
> You ever watch someone get killed by that bear, then go in expecting it,
>only to get mauled in the back because it had wandered around behind
>Lara because the player expected it in the same location? :P
Actually, no. But I'll take your word for it, especially since
someone else mentioned it. As I said, slight unpredictability is
babysteps in the right direction.
> Of course that "cheat" is a factor of the game, it makes up for people
>who may not quite have the reflexes, cool or luck to make it through
>a situation on the first attempt. After they die, they can think and
>reason a better approach, which still may not work. What's particularly
>entertaining is that for many monsters and traps there are more than
>one way to get through them. Plus there is that extra thrill of making
>it through an unexpected situation on the first try... :)
That's exactly what I'm saying. There's an extra thrill the first
time. Or, to make a logically identical statement, there's less
thrill the second, third, and fourth time. Hence the low level of
replayability.
>> Even the ancient game "breakout" was more openended, because depending
>> on you play towards the end the remaining blocks took on new patterns
>> that required new techniques. There was no way to entirely anticipate
>> the situation in replay.
>
> Unless you were good with geometry/trig...
But seriously, that would be of no use. In any case, towards the end,
each time you get a different arrangement of blocks left.
>> Then (in TR1) there's the difficulty of
>> measuring distances and slope gradients (i.e., will I be able to stand
>> on a particular surface). At certain points I can't judge that a
>> particular jump will work out. Well, do I have low skill that needs
>> to improve? No, I simply haven't tried the jump. Once I try it I
>> discover whether it's doable or not.
>
> Slopes are fairly easy, and by St. Francis you should be able to judge
>most any jump in the game. Doesn't mean you won't screw it up though...
>And it doesn't mean that jump should even be made that way.
The point is, once you've made the jump, the difficulty is gone, since
you know it'll work every time with minimal effort on your part.
>> This is not the sort of
>> challenge that appeals to me, i.e., merely memorizing what's going to
>> happen and what can be done and then doing it. I like games whose
>> development can't be memorized.
>
> TR1 was a puzzle game first and foremost.
That's exactly the point I've been pounding into the ground for
several posts. Anyway, puzzle games have low replayability, and
that's fine, it's expected.
>> >have a similar attitude to Myth, wanting to just get to the end because I
>> >personally find the fights interesting the first couple of times, but boring
>> >after a while. On the other hand, if that happened to me, I'd just stop
>> >playing the game completely. It's fun and rewarding to get the end, but if
>> >the journey there wasn't entertaining I'm not going to take the time to do
>> >it. (BTW- No, I haven't played Myth, I was simply using it as an example).
>>
>> I don't see why you'd stop playing a game even the first try if it
>> only got dull after the third or fourth try. Those are separate
>> things.
>
> Again you apparently misunderstand a point. The person was basically
>saying the game was interesting to begin with, but soon became dull and
>repetitious.
No, that was me! I'm the one who said that the game is great the
first time through but gets old the third or fourth time. Check the
thread. You're confusing posters. Once again, you're really on my
side of this issue but don't know it.
William Murphy
I'm saying that the quality (not quantity - though the game is
satisfyingly long) of environments in Tomb Raider is unsurpassed.
None of the games above comes close, not even Quake, which suffers
from lackluster level design.
>Tomb Raiders breakthrough was combining a large explorable world with much
>more complex interaction than had been done before. Up until that point, you
>couldn't jump, climb, flip, dive or even swim through a complex and
>interesting world. You simply plodded along on the ground and fell off of
>ledges. If you were lucky, you could sort of bob through the water. That was
>the breakthrough element in TR.
Yes, but this extra interaction with the environment is very directed
towards a specific purpose, which is the solving of puzzles. There is
one pronounced step backwards in Tomb Raider versus most of the other
games you mention (though not FMV), and that is the lack of fine
control over aim. That's okay, only because IMO the combat is not the
core of the experience, and are really there to keep the level of
excitement high (at least the first time through), and the real point
is the puzzle-solving, which involves climbing, jumping,
lever-pulling, and block pushing.
Patrick Dolan
William Murphy wrote in message <347d899...@news.tiac.net>...
>On 27 Nov 1997 05:53:23 GMT, "Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com>
>wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>That's exactly what I'm saying. There's an extra thrill the first
>time. Or, to make a logically identical statement, there's less
>thrill the second, third, and fourth time. Hence the low level of
>replayability.
>
Only if you are only looking for unpredictability and/or novelty as your
primary motivation for playing the game. Basically, if you are only playing
the game to see something "new" (random actions, new puzzles, the next
level, etc.). If, on the other hand, you play a game because you enjoy the
control, ineraction with the environment and feeling of "being there", it
isn't a problem.
With the first approach, where you only find a game to be replayable so long
as it offers you something "new", you will eventually be disappointed with
every game you get. Eventually you are going to see everything there is to
see, and you will have done everything you need to do. And the faster/easier
it is for you to get through the game in one sitting, the less replayability
it's going to offer you.
>>> Even the ancient game "breakout" was more openended, because depending
>>> on you play towards the end the remaining blocks took on new patterns
>>> that required new techniques. There was no way to entirely anticipate
>>> the situation in replay.
>>
>> Unless you were good with geometry/trig...
>
>But seriously, that would be of no use. In any case, towards the end,
>each time you get a different arrangement of blocks left.
>
Nonetheless, if you didn't enjoy playing the game, that certainly wouldn't
be enough to get you to keep playing it, or replaying it, as the case may
be. Hitting my head with a rock isn't fun no matter how many different rocks
I use, or what color they are...:)
(no flames folks, I love breakout, I was just making a comment)
>>> Then (in TR1) there's the difficulty of
>>> measuring distances and slope gradients (i.e., will I be able to stand
>>> on a particular surface). At certain points I can't judge that a
>>> particular jump will work out. Well, do I have low skill that needs
>>> to improve? No, I simply haven't tried the jump. Once I try it I
>>> discover whether it's doable or not.
>>
>> Slopes are fairly easy, and by St. Francis you should be able to judge
>>most any jump in the game. Doesn't mean you won't screw it up though...
>>And it doesn't mean that jump should even be made that way.
>
>The point is, once you've made the jump, the difficulty is gone, since
>you know it'll work every time with minimal effort on your part.
>
Again, you won't always know this. You may be fighting something when you
try the jump, the platforms may be bursting into fire, floor panels might
collapse, etc. And none of this has anything to do with the game being fun
to play.
>>> This is not the sort of
>>> challenge that appeals to me, i.e., merely memorizing what's going to
>>> happen and what can be done and then doing it. I like games whose
>>> development can't be memorized.
>>
>> TR1 was a puzzle game first and foremost.
>
>That's exactly the point I've been pounding into the ground for
>several posts. Anyway, puzzle games have low replayability, and
>that's fine, it's expected.
>
Not if the core engine is entertaining enough on it's own. So long as I'm
enjoying the process of controlling/playing the game, it doesn't bother me
if I've already done something.
>>> >have a similar attitude to Myth, wanting to just get to the end because
I
>>> >personally find the fights interesting the first couple of times, but
boring
>>> >after a while. On the other hand, if that happened to me, I'd just stop
>>> >playing the game completely. It's fun and rewarding to get the end, but
if
>>> >the journey there wasn't entertaining I'm not going to take the time to
do
>>> >it. (BTW- No, I haven't played Myth, I was simply using it as an
example).
>>>
>>> I don't see why you'd stop playing a game even the first try if it
>>> only got dull after the third or fourth try. Those are separate
>>> things.
>>
>> Again you apparently misunderstand a point. The person was basically
>>saying the game was interesting to begin with, but soon became dull and
>>repetitious.
>
>No, that was me! I'm the one who said that the game is great the
>first time through but gets old the third or fourth time. Check the
>thread. You're confusing posters. Once again, you're really on my
>side of this issue but don't know it.
>
*sigh*. I think we've got a serious case of miscommunication going here.
Lets see if we can straighten it out:
I find games _infinately_ replayable, if the mechanics of control,
navigation and environment interaction are fun, in and of themselves. If
that core game engine _isn't_ fun, I don't care how much new stuff is thrown
at me, I'm not going to play it.
You seem to find games unreplayable unless they constantly offer something
new and interesting to look at, even if the core game engine is fun. So long
as you have a new challenge or level to explore, you're happy.
I'm talking about control of the character, their interaction with the game
world, variety of actions offered to me, etc. You are talking about novelty
and/or difficulty.
I think that sums it up, comments?
Patrick Dolan
William Murphy wrote in message <347f8f2d...@news.tiac.net>...
>I'm saying that the quality (not quantity - though the game is
>satisfyingly long) of environments in Tomb Raider is unsurpassed.
>None of the games above comes close, not even Quake, which suffers
>from lackluster level design.
>
I'd have to disagree. Many of them have levels just as interesting and
varied as those in Tomb Raider. They might not be 3D (RPG's, Ultima Online),
but they are just as fascinating to explore and marvel at. Maybe not every
level in every one of those games, but on the other hand, not all of Tomb
Raiders levels were complete successes either.
>>Tomb Raiders breakthrough was combining a large explorable world with much
>>more complex interaction than had been done before. Up until that point,
you
>>couldn't jump, climb, flip, dive or even swim through a complex and
>>interesting world. You simply plodded along on the ground and fell off of
>>ledges. If you were lucky, you could sort of bob through the water. That
was
>>the breakthrough element in TR.
>
>Yes, but this extra interaction with the environment is very directed
>towards a specific purpose, which is the solving of puzzles. There is
>one pronounced step backwards in Tomb Raider versus most of the other
>games you mention (though not FMV), and that is the lack of fine
>control over aim. That's okay, only because IMO the combat is not the
>core of the experience, and are really there to keep the level of
>excitement high (at least the first time through), and the real point
>is the puzzle-solving, which involves climbing, jumping,
>lever-pulling, and block pushing.
>
I'd have to disagree. TR was primarily directed at exploring/interacting
with your environment. Most, if not all, of Tomb Raiders puzzles could have
been done just as easily in a more limited 3D engine. What point, after all,
does diving serve to solve puzzles? How about flipping through the air?
Handstands? etc. Answer: They serve no purspose in solving puzzles, but
they are useful and fun to use while navigating/exploring your environment.
Even the jumping and climbing didn't have to be as complex as it is, they
could have simply designed the floorplans of the levels to allow you to
"walk" up lower lying "steps" as in other Doom/Quake games.
Jumping, lever pulling and block pushing can be done (and has been) in other
3D games. They aren't exactly novel game elements. But those games didn't
offer the same level of control over your character, or the same amount of
fun in simply moving through the environment. Neither did they encourage the
amount of exloration and navigation of the environment that Tomb Raider
does.
Patrick Dolan
urban wrote in message <347D7579...@sphinx.biosci.wayne.edu>...
Again, it's not the "challenge" that I find lacking with infinate saves.
It's the fact that the save crystals added a game element to the first Tomb
Raider that is no longer present. They served to give the player a small
reward, both by being able to save their game and by presenting the player
with the feeling that they had accomplished something. Strategically, you
had to think about whether you wanted to use a save point right away, or
take a risk and see if you could clear out some other game elements first.
Just "not saving" won't restore the missing game elements.
Anthony Valenti
>
> However, I wonder if there will be a TR3. Except for improved graphics,
> I'm not sure what else they can add. At some point, gamers will tire of
> the theme. For example, I was a fan of Crash and I love Crash 2, but Crash
> 3? They are starting it, but I don't think I'm interested any more. Same
> would go for TR3 and TR4.
>
> A $19.99 TR expansion disk, however, would be great...
>
> Mark
>
would be interesting to see how they will do the expansion disc. I hear
that one is coming out.
Ant
William Murphy
>
>William Murphy wrote in message <347f8f2d...@news.tiac.net>...
>>I'm saying that the quality (not quantity - though the game is
>>satisfyingly long) of environments in Tomb Raider is unsurpassed.
>>None of the games above comes close, not even Quake, which suffers
>>from lackluster level design.
>>
>
>I'd have to disagree. Many of them have levels just as interesting and
>varied as those in Tomb Raider. They might not be 3D (RPG's, Ultima Online),
>but they are just as fascinating to explore and marvel at. Maybe not every
>level in every one of those games, but on the other hand, not all of Tomb
>Raiders levels were complete successes either.
I don't fully agree, but our disagreement on this point is a question
of taste (I want the maximum in realism and immersion, so no 2D
thanks), and anyway it's beside the issue. You're agreeing on the
importance of exploration to Tomb Raider. For an exploration-based
game to work well, it helps greatly if the environment is new and
unfamiliar. That's why I find the first time much more rewarding than
repeats. We're back to the question of replayability.
>>>Tomb Raiders breakthrough was combining a large explorable world with much
>>>more complex interaction than had been done before. Up until that point,
>you
>>>couldn't jump, climb, flip, dive or even swim through a complex and
>>>interesting world. You simply plodded along on the ground and fell off of
>>>ledges. If you were lucky, you could sort of bob through the water. That
>was
>>>the breakthrough element in TR.
>>
>>Yes, but this extra interaction with the environment is very directed
>>towards a specific purpose, which is the solving of puzzles. There is
>>one pronounced step backwards in Tomb Raider versus most of the other
>>games you mention (though not FMV), and that is the lack of fine
>>control over aim. That's okay, only because IMO the combat is not the
>>core of the experience, and are really there to keep the level of
>>excitement high (at least the first time through), and the real point
>>is the puzzle-solving, which involves climbing, jumping,
>>lever-pulling, and block pushing.
>>
>
>I'd have to disagree. TR was primarily directed at exploring/interacting
>with your environment. Most, if not all, of Tomb Raiders puzzles could have
>been done just as easily in a more limited 3D engine. What point, after all,
Heck, Myst could have been done with cartoon images. I'm glad it
wasn't. Same thing in Tomb Raider. But the interaction in Myst is
nevertheless very directed towards a specific purpose, which is the
solving of puzzles. Same thing in Tomb Raider. The presence, and
importance, of eye candy in either game does not stop it from being
primarily a puzzle-solving game.
Anyway, geometrically I think you're mistaken. You can't do in 2D
what you can do in 3D. The levels would have to be redesigned from
scratch. This is more true of Tomb Raider than of Quake, whose levels
are more reminiscent of 2.5D games like Doom. Mainly, I think, due to
the climbing. Climbing opens up whole new possibilities in level
design.
>does diving serve to solve puzzles? How about flipping through the air?
>Handstands? etc. Answer: They serve no purspose in solving puzzles, but
>they are useful and fun to use while navigating/exploring your environment.
Diving and handstands are eye candy, and yes, eye candy is important.
But its presence does not redefine the game. Flipping through the air
- ditto. Side jumps are, as far as I can see, directed towards
combat, which is a topic that may merit separate discussion, but in
short, the combat interface is very limited, particularly since it's
button-based (keyboard or gamepad) rather than analog-based (e.g.,
mouse, joystick). For example, there aren't degrees of running.
Either you walk, run, hop back, etc. That's one reason I don't think
combat defines Tomb Raider, or is what makes it excellent. (Yes, I
find Mortal Kombat et al. unsatisfying.)
>
>Even the jumping and climbing didn't have to be as complex as it is, they
>could have simply designed the floorplans of the levels to allow you to
>"walk" up lower lying "steps" as in other Doom/Quake games.
Actually, climbing opens up whole new possibilities in level design.
I don't think TR levels could be believably "redone" as Doom levels.
>Jumping, lever pulling and block pushing can be done (and has been) in other
>3D games. They aren't exactly novel game elements. But those games didn't
>offer the same level of control over your character, or the same amount of
>fun in simply moving through the environment. Neither did they encourage the
>amount of exloration and navigation of the environment that Tomb Raider
>does.
What's this! You admit that Tomb Raider encourages exploration and
navigation more than any other game. Surely this is a core
measurement of the quality of the environment. Yes, you agree, it
*is* unsurpassed by this measurement.
William Murphy
>
>You seem to find games unreplayable unless they constantly offer something
>new and interesting to look at, even if the core game engine is fun. So long
>as you have a new challenge or level to explore, you're happy.
Fair enough. Add "new and interesting to do". Which certain sorts
of games offer in spades, e.g., chess.
William Murphy
I see, you see the decision of whether to save as an important game
element. But there's a different view on this as well. Saving is not
something that happens within the world of the game, so one can argue
that the decision to save should not be made part of the game. One's
attention should be focused on events happening within Lara's world,
e.g., switches, hidden rooms, enemies. Maybe in terms of the whole
experience, the Tomb Raider makers ultimately found it more
"immersive" to do it this way, which is why TR2 is the way it is.
There are at least two ways to do this. Either make saving impossible
except at certain points (thus making it impossible to think
strategically about when to save). Or else, allow gamers to save
anywhere.
The former retains the challenge but eliminates the gameplay element
of deciding whether to use up a save point. But you claim that's not
what you find lacking. I agree. So we're agreed then, allow gamers
to save anywhere. :)
Patrick Dolan
William Murphy wrote in message <347e523...@news.tiac.net>...
I enjoy the _mechanics_ of the exploration as much as, if not more so, what
I get to see for my efforts. If I didn't have fun moving around in the
environment, all the cool visuals in the world wouldn't make me happy.
Myst isn't _nearly_ as interactive as TR, I'm sorry to say. What
"interaction" there is, exists solely for the purpose of getting from point
A to B, and manipulating puzzle elements. TR could have taken exactly the
same approach, offering minimal control/interaction in order to get you
around the environment and interact with the puzzles, but it didn't. In
fact, it went well beyond the control/interaction offered in any existing
action game. Somehow I don't think that was accidental...:)
TR was designed to allow very complex and entertaining interaction with the
game environment, first and foremost.
>Anyway, geometrically I think you're mistaken. You can't do in 2D
>what you can do in 3D. The levels would have to be redesigned from
>scratch. This is more true of Tomb Raider than of Quake, whose levels
>are more reminiscent of 2.5D games like Doom. Mainly, I think, due to
>the climbing. Climbing opens up whole new possibilities in level
>design.
>
??? Elevation variances do not require "climbing", you can get them just as
easily with stairs, elevators or teleportation disks.
As for 2D vs 3D, I never said you could make 3D objects in 2D, merely that
the environments can be just as intersesting and explorable. Unless you are
only interested in seeing 3D objects, I suppose.
>>does diving serve to solve puzzles? How about flipping through the air?
>>Handstands? etc. Answer: They serve no purspose in solving puzzles, but
>>they are useful and fun to use while navigating/exploring your
environment.
>
>Diving and handstands are eye candy, and yes, eye candy is important.
>But its presence does not redefine the game. Flipping through the air
>- ditto. Side jumps are, as far as I can see, directed towards
>combat, which is a topic that may merit separate discussion, but in
>short, the combat interface is very limited, particularly since it's
>button-based (keyboard or gamepad) rather than analog-based (e.g.,
>mouse, joystick). For example, there aren't degrees of running.
>Either you walk, run, hop back, etc. That's one reason I don't think
>combat defines Tomb Raider, or is what makes it excellent. (Yes, I
>find Mortal Kombat et al. unsatisfying.)
>
Most Doom games are likewise played with buttons, what's your point? At best
you have a choice between walking or running (and most players seem to use
running at all times). Likewise, they don't even offer the options of
hopping forwards or backwards, or of being able to climb objects, flip,
dive, roll, etc. Hell, if anything TR offers a much more complex control
system than "real" combat games.
>>
>>Even the jumping and climbing didn't have to be as complex as it is, they
>>could have simply designed the floorplans of the levels to allow you to
>>"walk" up lower lying "steps" as in other Doom/Quake games.
>
>Actually, climbing opens up whole new possibilities in level design.
>I don't think TR levels could be believably "redone" as Doom levels.
>
All climbing is is a method of achieving a higher elevation level. That's
been present in games for quite a long time, including Doom (granted it
didn't allow above/below elements). I fail to see how that "opens up new
possibilites", when it's been present in pretty much all other 3D games.
>>Jumping, lever pulling and block pushing can be done (and has been) in
other
>>3D games. They aren't exactly novel game elements. But those games didn't
>>offer the same level of control over your character, or the same amount of
>>fun in simply moving through the environment. Neither did they encourage
the
>>amount of exloration and navigation of the environment that Tomb Raider
>>does.
>
>What's this! You admit that Tomb Raider encourages exploration and
>navigation more than any other game. Surely this is a core
>measurement of the quality of the environment. Yes, you agree, it
>*is* unsurpassed by this measurement.
>
Miscommunication time again!
Exploration (my definition): Navigating a game environment, preferably in a
manner that gives me variable methods to reach goals that I have set.
Exploration (your definition, as best I can tell): Seeing 3D objects from a
multitude of angles, prefereably things you haven't seen previously.
Patrick Dolan
William Murphy wrote in message <34870881...@news.tiac.net>...
>On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 19:41:37 -0600, "Patrick Dolan"
><patd...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>urban wrote in message <347D7579...@sphinx.biosci.wayne.edu>...
>>>
>>>
>>>Patrick Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>* Being able to save at any point takes WAY too much fun out of it.
I
>>>>
>>>
>>> Real simple solution to that... Don't use it !!!!! I like the option
>>myself,
>>>you can set you own challenge level that way...
>>>
>>
>>
>>Again, it's not the "challenge" that I find lacking with infinate saves.
>>It's the fact that the save crystals added a game element to the first
Tomb
>>Raider that is no longer present. They served to give the player a small
>>reward, both by being able to save their game and by presenting the player
>>with the feeling that they had accomplished something. Strategically, you
>>had to think about whether you wanted to use a save point right away, or
>>take a risk and see if you could clear out some other game elements first.
>>
>>Just "not saving" won't restore the missing game elements.
>
>I see, you see the decision of whether to save as an important game
>element. But there's a different view on this as well. Saving is not
>something that happens within the world of the game, so one can argue
>that the decision to save should not be made part of the game.
Well, yes it is. In the first game, it _was_ something that happened in the
world of the game, that's why you had to find save crystals within the
environment.
>One's
>attention should be focused on events happening within Lara's world,
>e.g., switches, hidden rooms, enemies. Maybe in terms of the whole
>experience, the Tomb Raider makers ultimately found it more
>"immersive" to do it this way, which is why TR2 is the way it is.
>
I'm guessing that they got complaints from people who didn't enjoy playing
the game, and thus became "bored" and frustrated when they got stuck.
>There are at least two ways to do this. Either make saving impossible
>except at certain points (thus making it impossible to think
>strategically about when to save). Or else, allow gamers to save
>anywhere.
>
How about granting the player a single "save crystal" at the start of the
game. It can be used anywhere, one time, to save the game. Scattered
throughout the game are other save crystals that can be picked up and
carried with the player. They could be hidden or obvious, and the player
could "hoard" them for future use.
Granted, it doesn't solve the "problem" of wanting to save because you've
got something else to do. But I consider that to be about as much of a
problem as someone complaining that the game is too hard for _them_, and
therefore should be made easier for everyone. Or a complaint that someone
simply doesn't have _any_ free time to play the game, and therefore they
want it to play itself....:)
Hmm...How about this: Use both infinate (game)saves _and_ save crystals.
When you need to quit the game to do something else, a game save will save
your game and return to the main menu, allowing you to power off the machine
and go about your business. . However, if you continue from that point and
_die_, you are bumped back to the last place you used a save crystal (I'm
assuming use of the save crystal technique I outlined above).
With this approach, players can quit and continue whenever they want,
without losing the risk/reward structure of finding save crystals. Plus, by
allowing the player to "hoard" the save crystals for further use, they
become _much_ more strategic. If you really want to, you can save your game
just before you go into a room filled with nasties, but you're out a save
crystal (and if you forget to save down the line, you may get bumped back to
that room and have to fight them all over...)
Likewise, the scoring system could incorporate this method as well, granting
you more points for longer stretches of exploration without using a save
crystal (maybe a rating at the end of the level or something. Possibly even
offer a crystal for doing well enough).
I think this would make the "I've got a movie to see" people happy, the
"don't want to backtrack" people happy (so long as they were smart about
using the crystals) and it would keep much of the risk/reward structure the
crystals offered intact.
>The former retains the challenge but eliminates the gameplay element
>of deciding whether to use up a save point. But you claim that's not
>what you find lacking. I agree. So we're agreed then, allow gamers
>to save anywhere. :)
>
Um, no. Again: My primary complaint isn't that it "removes the challenge" of
the game by allowing the player to save anywhere. My complaint is that it
_does_ remove an element of gameplay that was present previously, one that
offered a nice reward system for the player as well as introducing strategic
variables and risk/reward issues that needed to be dealt with.
To whomever wants to jump in on this discussion: Whether or not the game is
as challenging with infinate saves _is not my argument_, so please don't
waste bandwith telling me not to save if I want a challenge, okay? Thanks!
Peter Bell
In article <3482aeda...@news.tiac.net>, William Murphy
<metamu...@hotmail.com> writes
The standard Sony memory card is 128K - 8K is overhead (block map, icons
for saves), and the remainder is set up as 15 8K blocks for game saves.
AFAIK, nobody has ever made a 64K card for the PS - it would be pretty
pointless, since the software expects to find 15 pages on a card, and
such a card would only provide 7.
There are various aftermarket cards available, most of which use
compression in order to try and make a limited amount of storage go
further. The largest *uncompressed* card I've seen was 512K (60
blocks). Some of the cards using compression claim very large capacity,
but in practice you get less (as an example, one "360 slot" compressed
card only had 512K of physical storage - the same as the 60 slot
uncompressed card).
I would suspect that the "1MB" card you saw was just following the old
console trick of using megabits - this would make it the same size as
the Sony one, at 128K.
Pete
--
Peter Bell
Naaron9
This is my first time here, so I hope I don't screw this up. Anyway, I don't
know if someone already said this or not, because I only read the first two
messages here, not all 32. Anyway, here's my opinion--DON'T TAKE UP SPACE ON
MY SCREEN FOR NOTHING!!! Rent the game first, play it, if you don't like it,
then you don't have to buy it.
Neil Strotton
>>>The Sony memory cards have 128K of FlashRAM.
>
>I would suspect that the "1MB" card you saw was just following the old
>console trick of using megabits - this would make it the same size as
>the Sony one, at 128K.
OK, I could be completely wrong here 'cos I've been out of the
Playstation scene for a while now, but ISTR that the larger memory
cards use a paging system, and by pressing a button on the card (or
something) you switch between 'pages' of memory (ie. 1 page = 128k).
A similar trick that the old Amstrad CPC6128 used as I recall, but now
I'm getting nostalgic. :-)
Best Regards,
/\/eil.
(Remove NOSPAM for e-mail replies)