What goes into a Sequel? (Rise of the Tomb Raider)

First off a quick reminder, I really like Tomb Raider and my time so far playing Rise of the Tomb Raider. So anything negative is in service of making games better, not putting down Tomb Raider. The first (well remake) I finished (with 81%), and it's rare for me to finish a game. Even though I rushed through the end to get on to the next one, it was an enjoyable experience!

This seems like an appropriate day to post since Rise of the Tomb Raider is coming out today for PC. It looks like we got a good port too!

Kotaku: Rise of the Tomb Raider Can Really Push Your PC

(although his PC specs are pretty crazy, unless you just built your rig)

So what goes into a sequel? Well, fans have to feel like you put in enough effort to justify a sequel, but if you mess with the formula too many fans of the original will hate the sequel. Everything here will be opinion, but I'll try to give a small list of what worked and didn't for me. First off, will be the two changes I feel the strongest about:

The Expanded Crafting System:

Instead of a single crafting currency there are now many. In Tomb Raider (TR), I get currency from all locations and then I have enough and the upgrade is unlocked, I just spend it. In Rise of the Tomb Raider (RotTR), I have limited inventory (that's still unrealistic so why?) and have to watch out for the exact consumables I need. I'm at a point I need a bear pelt for the upgrade I want, but they are rare. So to keep from wasting materials (if you're over the cap you can't carry them), I've been crafting upgrades I care much less about. There is always the problem of getting the materials you need.

This is an interesting one because I think my younger self with more time to game may have liked this change. I was the one playing World of Warcraft killing Onyxia and complaining that she dropped a ready-to-wear helm that fit my character without so much as an alteration... However, I'm not a fan of farming. If I kill something the size of a dozen buses, I shouldn't have to kill it a half dozen times to get enough materials to create armor for my puny human character. (I'm looking at you Monster Hunter!).

The Overuse of the Gating System:

From the very start of RotTR, it's clear their level designers knew what tools they had to work with from the beginning and did a much better job. A drawback to knowing their tools is the extensive use of gating in their early levels. Recognizable rope arrow points are used extensively from the original TR before they have been made available to you. A new mechanic of lock picking is also introduced along with all the returning mechanics: pry points you need a reinforced climbing axe, explosive walls, etc... The game shows so many places you'll be returning to later once all your gear is available.

As an explorer and completionist, this drives me insane! I like to take my time and comb the area for secrets and feel good when I find them. It seems as if I'll finish RotTR by rushing through the story to the point all "progression gear" is available. Then, I'll go back through the entire game like I normally would.

Okay, now for some other changes that are noteworthy, but don't carry the strong feelings of the two above:

Quick Time Events:

These are back, I played quite a while before I ran into them and thought they were replaced with slow-motion sequences (that use the same controls as real time), but they are there in smaller numbers. A big plus! The less QTE's the better!

Forced Gun Play:

These were points I struggled with in TR. When the game takes you out of cover and everyone sees you and starts shooting at you and you have to fight back. I feel both games are designed better for stealth take downs and spend the majority of my time using the bow and sneaking so mechanically, I haven't spent time with the "normal" guns. So these were difficulty spikes because the game mechanics were forced on me. So far RotTR hasn't done this, but I'm not done with the game yet.

Crafting Arrows & Instantly Healing:

This is a good thing about the new crafting system. Consuming a small amount of materials will allow you to craft your own arrows if you can't find any laying around as well as special arrows like poison arrows. Also, you can heal intently instead of ducking behind cover and waiting for re-gen to start. These are both welcome additions.

The Tombs and Puzzles are Much Better:

I already called out level design, but this is worth noting in it's own section. Level design in RotTR is much better than TR. I think this is almost entirely because game mechanics were mostly in place at the star of development so their team knew what they had to work with.

Changing Controls:

This one may not have been as big of a deal if I hadn't played TR and RotTR back to back. Having controls change between the two games for some of the most used features was annoying! Things like rope arrows (though they probably didn't need their own button) and whatever Laura's sense ability is (think Batman's detective mode) being remapped caused issues as I instinctively reached for the TR controls even after hours of play. I'm still playing Laura, who looks like the old Laura mostly, but controls differently.

The PC Port is Again the Definitive Version:

Granted it is releasing as I'm writing this, but everything points to the work being put in for the PC version of the game including improved graphics, shaders, new nVidia tech, hair simulation, etc. At the time of release, the PC version of TR was the best, but with the next gen update the PC version was left behind mostly (it had some advantages, but overall next gen was better). This is a big deal especially with questionable ports of things like Arkham Knight and Warner Brothers (again) recent announcement they are abandoning the PC port of Mortal Kombat X. It's nice to see some companies are still doing it right!

There are other differences not listed, but these are what stand out when I think about them as mentionable. I would recommend both games and they are both solid entries in your gaming library, but surprisingly I think I like Tomb Raider slightly above Rise of the Tomb Raider as I think a lot of the additions made were more about game play time padding. These days I don't have a lot of time and I don't want it wasted. If a game is beatable in 15 hours, but a solid game with a good story and progression, I'd rather play that game then the exact same game that takes 30 hours because there was 15 hours of padding thrown in. I'm not saying Rise of the Tomb Raider does this entirely, but my first two points I feel like are just for padding. Gating makes you return to areas for the completionist and while a more realistic list of crafting materials is logical, it basically ends up padding the crafting system and as a result, the progression system. I hope you enjoy both games, and I'm looking forward to the amazing looking visuals in the PC release!

Video Games Pricing Matrix - Working or Not?

Setting the Stage

This is going to be the most controversial post so far, so it's good to get a few under the belt in case anyone is reading these.

So the basic pricing matrix is something like this:

• AAA: $60
• Download only: $40-50
• Handheld (3DS, Vita): $40
• Independent: < $40 (some times way less)
• Titles a few years old don't normally leave retail below $30 but $20 is rock bottom for retail
• Mobile (Phone) Games < $5

It has been this way a long time! See the 1994 flying recently posted on Kotaku with Donkey Kong Country 3 (SNES) selling for $69.99 and nothing under $35.

So part of what brought on this post was complaints about multiplayer only games also selling at the $60 mark and the big culprit: Battlefront!

Let's see you can guy the Ultimate Edition for $120 ($125 if you buy in parts, so props for not adding more to that price tag).

But let's look a this from a development stand point... games take longer with a MUCH larger team (roughly 10x), and multiplayer is so much harder to balance than single player that charging less for something that takes more time and has almost unlimited replay-ability for the target audience is a strange request. I do however see the arguments for paying $50 for unknown content and the allegations that the game was missing to much content to release as a "full game." But I'll save that for another time and focus on price points.

The Problem as I see it

So here is what I see as the actual problem... people pay $60 for a very short game: The Order 1886 was criticized heavily for it's length (didn't personally play it).

And paying $40 for Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate that I've sunk 100+ hours into. Other good examples are the Souls' games, Skyrim, etc.

Thoughts About the Solution

The easy part is pointing out problems, the hard part is fixing them. I game for enjoyment, so games I enjoy more I would pay more for... i.e. Monster Hunter is worth at least $60. Nintendo came up with an interesting solution with it's branch of into mobile of treating them like coin-up's and you buy "plays" This works to some extent as you pay more for games you play more, and little to nothing for games you don't. The problem with this is at some point I want to flat out own my games. I still buy disk copies as at some point Microsoft and Sony will stop supporting downloads and I want to be able to play my console games.

Another possibility is pricing games based on the estimated average playtime. While this is probably the most reasonable it will lead to padding content in games again (something that has been getting better), and very high prices and hence bared entry to things like RPGs. Then you also have the multiplayer games that require a large player base to function and technically could have unlimited playing hours.

I think the actual solution will be fore the gaming consumers to be more open to a range of prices. Maybe DLC packs are the answer, but with a more defined description of the content you are paying for. The Batman game as an example was rated very well while the DLC was not.

It will be interesting to see what happens!

Bloodborne Progressive System [mini-post]

I'm a long time 'Souls game fan! Bloodborne feels like their first "new" game though. Dark Souls felt like a more polished Demon Souls, Dark Souls 2 felt like small game tweaks and mostly phoned in sequel and lost part of it's soul. yuk yuk. But Bloodborne is different. It has the soul of Demon and Dark Souls that was missing from Dark Souls 2 and is set in a different environment and basically lacking shields and magic speeds up melee combat to a sweet spot!

So my point: You can explore much longer in Bloodborne than you could in Dark Souls. The Estus Flask system limits how far from a bond fire you can travel AND requires you to rest at bonfires you come across re-spawning enemies. Bloodborne uses 2 main consumables: Blood flasks and silver bullets. The blood flasks refill health or as I like the idea better your "will to continue fighting" and drop fairly regularly. Because of this as long as you don't take a significant amount of damage from trash you are clearing you can keep going almost indefinitely as long as you can loot more than you use. The silver bullets are a way to score a one-hit-kill on some of the tougher mobs in the game and you can trade some health for 5 of them if you run out as these are rarer drops.

So that's it, just highlighting what in my opinion is a great improvement on their gameplay system. A fairly small tweak that no longer forces you to stop progressing/exploring just because you are out of healing charges, and keeps you from having to re-kill trash if you don't want to. It fits well with the faster paced combat as well, and while it was a rocky start I'm enjoying Bloodborne so far!