Jamz3k

Are they?

I spoke to a friend about the new Tomb Raider game on Thursday evening, he said he was thinking of buying it. Speaking again today and he's completed it. I've only played it for a few hours and I'm rattling through the levels okish with very little thinking.

I can remember playing Tomb Raider 2 for weeks on end... I actually don't think I completed it as some of the puzzles were pretty difficult.

Now either games are getting shorter, dumbed down or we're getting smarter. What is it?

Also the girl they've got voicing Lara Croft is the worst voiceover actress ever.

wayne9t9

I was thinking the same thing. I just completed it and was disappointed at how easy it was. Too much video, not enough challenging gameplay. I don`t think we`re getting smarter, just try and get through TR 4 without reverting to a walkthrough.

F1 CJE UK

iTrader: (8)

Yep they put too much time into how games look and not how they play!

Tomb raider is a good game but I agree a little short. Games don't seem to have any replay value in the past you would unlock a new game mode so you re play the game from the start.

dpb

Last one I played was 3 hrs and cost 10p

hill79

Most of the major publishers do it now with their big-name, well established games - a Tomb Raider title doesn't need to be exceptional or push boundaries to sell by the bucket load, people will buy it regardless because its Tomb Raider. Besides, they don't want you to get more than 8h out of a game otherwise you might not buy the DLC they release two weeks after the initial launch or the next big game they're bringing out Much like the last few COD titles which have really just been a bunch of new maps and guns for £40.

DJ Dunk

iTrader: (5)

I disagree. Tomb Raider is a 12hr+ single player campaign, even if you're playing on 'Easy' and not concentrating on collectables. A proper, exploring playthrough and collectables cleanup is a good 18hrs+.

They've changed the game to refresh it and give it more mass appeal; meaning dumbed down puzzles, but improved combat, action and level variation. Very successfully IMO. Plus you have the addition of the multiplayer aspect which consumers demand these days adding many, many more hours gameplay. Great value if you ask me.

I think Tomb Raider is a poor example, but I have seen cases of very limited single player campaigns in preference to adding multiplayer modes and chargeable DLC - so I'd agree there though.

hill79

I wasn't really talking specifically about Tomb Raider to be honest, just using it as an example - perhaps not the best. Its a shame they saw the need to give it more mass-market appeal, the original was a refreshing change from the Doom-clones that were around at the time and was much more of the 3d puzzle platformer than a shooter (other than the odd wolf or bear!) which made it stand out a bit.

Peedee

iTrader: (4)

Agreed, 'some' games are very short, but on the flip side, some are extremely long, especially if you take into account collectables, sub - missions, playing on harder difficulty etc etc.

If you want a game with good longevity, try FARCRY 3. Best game I've played for a long time. S h I t e multiplayer, but the single game will last you hours and hours.

Tidgy

yeah def getting shorter, sniper ghost warrior 2, 4 hours to complete, pretty disapointed with it tbh, stuck with whatever guns you have (pretty much anyway) and no sence from if your spotted or not, ca be right next to them and they dont see you, or can be miles away yet in same stance yet they see you :S

Fleetster

Yea, especially main missions on games, I guess they have to put so much in to graphics etc...

Geezer

I have the latest TR, and it's deffo not as long as some of the originals.

On the plus side, she has the best **** in this one

Joking aside, most games conecntrate on the MP side now, with SP given only lip service. TR is mostly SP, so it's considerablt longer than somethinglike COD on SP.

Hopefully the new BioShock will be as long as the original, which was huge.

Geezer