What's been making me chuckle for weeks about this is how the original Tomb Raiders had a character whose oversexualized design seemed virtually indefensible 15 some odd years ago. Now she seems like some role model. I'm not sure how this works exactly.
Here, we've just swapped the "badass sexy" trope of the 90s for the more currently popular "PG-13 horror flick token brunette who survives while the stereotypes die" trope.
I can imagine a Xena reboot where the kitchy perfection of Lucy Lawless is replaced with Jennifer Lawrence covered in mud and blood, crying and apologizing while she pulls guys' hearts out through their mouths.
while the 'bad-ass sexy' thing goes a ways back (tura satana, pam grier, some bond girls, & beyond), lara's cultured/sophisticated brit identity definitely gave the trope a nice video game update. cd opting to go the 'sweet/sensitive' route with her (as well as their choice to go tomb-less), just feels to me to be the result of laziness & lack of imagination. so we end up with this game that's just fine. except it doesn't really include either lara croft or tombs ...
all i want from the next tr is back to basics. isolation/exploration. & if i feel the need to 'protect' someone, it's not lara, it's anyone/anything who's stupid enough to cross her path ...
Because I liked previous Tomb Raider games, I've played through most of this, and I can say whatever I want so long as I'm not trolling? I'm glad you liked it. I don't. It's the internet. Both opinions can exist.
It may not be trolling, but it certainly is grumpy. We're on like page 200 and you haven't beaten it, don't seem to like it, yet hang around the 200+ page of the OT, and respond to obviously rhetorical statements with pure negativity.
I'm not arguing against your opinion. I'm not trying to tell you this game outs great. But I think it would be nice if instead of stating your opinion as fact, engage in discussion with why you feel certain aspects weren't what you expected, or how and why you think they could improve.
So, I really loved it on my first playthrough (I gave it a 8/10).
But I tried to start a new game yesterday but it was a bit painful, because it's way too linear, there's no particularly new stuff to try to do differently. So I don't have much desire to continue as I feel I've seen everything there was to see.
That said I feel differently about Arkham Asylum which is also mostly linear, same for Portal 2 or Mario Galaxy. Why is that? Please help me understand!
You were expecting it to be the same experience in those games. Here, maybe you thought there'd be slight differences, but it doesn't really open up much till midway.
It may not be trolling, but it certainly is grumpy. We're on like page 200 and you haven't beaten it, don't seem to like it, yet hang around the 200+ page of the OT, and respond to obviously rhetorical statements with pure negativity.
I'm not arguing against your opinion. I'm not trying to tell you this game outs great. But I think it would be nice if instead of stating your opinion as fact, engage in discussion with why you feel certain aspects weren't what you expected, or how and why you think they could improve.
Everything I post is my opinion. Some people take things they read so seriously. I'm not grumpy. My opinion on a game is negative. So what? I've also explained why I think the AI is bad (people sticking their heads out from cover, clustering around the guy that'll blow up when I shoot him, lots of people being fodder for my melee, health regenerating very quickly), why I think the platforming is poor (I literally have not missed a jump and think that you would have to make an effort to do so, no timing involved, no risk of failure...things I think are required for 'good' platforming...hell, even the one opportunity to require timing in the game (the zipline section), the game slows down as a cue for you to press the button so you won't miss), why I think the puzzles are a joke, etc.
I still haven't beaten the game. I think the middle section from the QTE laden intro up to after shantytown was really fun. I even liked shantytown as that was the first time the game challenged me (but I did this by forcing myself to use only the bow and arrow). I said that I would play the game in small increments each night until I finished the game and that's what I'm doing. It's why I'm still in this thread. When I finish, I'll probably post my final thoughts, even if I really don't see a reason when so many others have covered pretty much exactly what I think.
I had another person recently say that I 'force my opinion' on people, and sometimes I think my posts are miscontrued, or people just take me/things far too seriously. I'm a happy guy. Most of the time I'm like this , not like grumpy cat. I certainly don't think my way is the only way to look at things, but short of typing IMO IMO IMO after everything I say, I guess I don't see how to get others to understand that what I post is just for me.
He points out all the problems of the game and still there are people who defend this game. Why? They took random mechanics and mushed them into an Uncharted clone? Is that what you really want to play? All the power to you then...
Tomb Raider doesn't suck. It's generic and boring. Too safe for it's own good.
He points out all the problems of the game and still there are people who defend this game. Why? They took random mechanics and mushed them into an Uncharted clone? Is that what you really want to play? All the power to you then...
Tomb Raider doesn't suck. It's generic and boring. Too safe for it's own good.
Just finished this and really surprised. I didn't think I was going to like it as much as I did, but I really enjoyed it. No replay value what so ever but I don't care, the 8 hours I spent with the game were fantastic. The composition of the game is so well done, levels just flow into each other. 9/10
Played for about 6 hours now and I'm a bit disappointed I spent $25 for the game (<$20 is a more suitable price point). Terrible, cringe-inducing cast is probably my biggest complaint. I really could not give a shit about anyone in the game. Combat is pretty straightforward, but feels relatively stale considering it's never challenging nor is it appropriately paced. Missed opportunity for a crafting system (beyond just scrap that magically transforms a WW2 rifle into a modern assault rifle) or a basic needs system so the animals are more than just XP in disguise and to address the "desperate survival on an island" aspect that was in the advertising I saw. Tombs felt completely unnecessary and tacked-on considering they're a cave corridor with pointless forced torch-holding that manages to kill my interest before I even get to the single-puzzle room which takes all of 30 seconds to solve.
I did like the plentiful amount of optional exploration though, even if it was a bit shallow. Expansive, large areas are also a plus.
WTF? what would be the point, she needs to focus on myths and archaeology in her story, not making Lara gay
CD please get someone else for the next game, her part in the current TR is the games bad points
How about she concentrate on improving the characters more next time than worrying about her sexuality? I did not give a damn about a single person in the game. And avoid falling into the cliche characters again too please.
By far one of the games weakest area, story and characters.
Yeah its tacky, it worse then given her large boobs
plus its saying a strong woman has to be lesbian too, there are so many wrongs in it
and more importantly, it's like a new writer taking over the God Of War series and making Kratos gay, or Snake from MGS, imagine if Ninja theory made Danti gay
the only people who would see it as acceptable are people who just don't care and people hoping to see some girl on girl action
Meh, I've been meaning to write a review ever since I beat the game, but I've been too lazy. Oh well:
Story:
Tomb Raider attempts to tell the story of how a young Lara Croft became the adventurer we've come to know. While the story isn't offensively bad, in my opinion, it certainly isn't good. Skills and personality traits that this story was constructed to introduce the origins of are already part of Lara's character before the game even starts. She already knows how to survive, she's already gone on numerous explorations and mountain climbing trips, and apparently she got a lot of practice on the shooting range. Her overwhelming lust for ancient knowledge that comes at any cost is already there. Flashback recordings and documents show this drive for adventure, and any time you find a relic, no matter how serious the situation, Lara will wax poetic about how awesome the thing she found is. As a result, the character development that they say is going on feels incredibly forced. There is no gradual build up. She'll be fully capable and then cry about lack of confidence at the next cutscene. The only thing that really changes about her character is she gains bloodlust and reduced skepticism, which is silly considering how quickly she changes in both cases.
The urgency of the story and the drama doesn’t mesh with the gameplay, which allows you to move about at whatever pace you want at any time exploring the wide hallways while Lara’s friends are in danger or murder an army of guys and climbing a mountain before crying about lack of confidence.
I feel that the supernatural element is very poorly handled. The game does a nice job building up and foreshadowing what amounts to an anticlimax.
The oni are basically just dudes who are as weak against Lara’s weapons as everyone else she kills and less equipped to defend themselves. Lara proves to be a more formidable foe for them than THE ENTIRE JAPANESE MILITARY
. The most supernatural thing is Lara's powers against probability and injury and the ability of everyone else but Lara to navigate the island quickly and safely. Hell, one part early on has
Roth somehow get to the top of a mountain where Lara coincidentally runs into him. There is no path up to this area and Roth has only 1 good leg. There's also a section where Lara's crew returns to the beach and Lara quips that they probably found a safer way down.
The
grenade launcher
scene is one of the most contrived scenes I've ever seen. It's just there waiting for her. How lucky!
The story doesn't seem to know what to do with the antagonistic humans. Many times the dialog will show you that a lot of the Solarii you come across are still fairly human and sympathetic, but they will all turn into mindless killer AI regardless of whatever they were saying previously as soon as they are alerted. If they don't want Lara or the player to sympathize with the enemies why give them sympathetic dialog or motivations to begin with?
Lara gets captured THREE TIMES by the Solarii and once by the Oni. KILL HER!
My god sometimes this game makes Bond villain plots look good.
Characters:
Tomb Raider's cast is awful. They are just blatant stereotypes who exist only to motivate Lara, but don't have the depth for the player to care about them. Sometimes the game really stretches to create an emotional moment, like when
a character dies for a wrench and a screwdriver in attempt to impress Lara as revealed in his GAF thread draft document you find a few minutes before
. In fact, I was rooting for their deaths. The overabundance of human characters takes away from the environment and sense of adventure. Lara having other people to worry about creates an artificial forced quick pace to the narrative that doesn’t really fit with the exploration and mystery. She goes at her own pace anyway, until she triggers the next QTE or action sequence where the whole level self destructs.
Gameplay:
The combat is an improvement over the past games in the series. Instead of monotonous autoaim affairs you have to actually aim your weapons. The controls for aiming felt good and responsive. Unfortunately the variety of enemies to shoot was very lacking, consisting almost entirely of humans who just try to overpower you with x-ray scope weapons and endless volleys of molotovs and dynamite. These encounters are too numerous and as monotonous as combat was before; they unfortunately take up the majority of the gameplay and level design focus. The less frequent stealth encounters, however, are where the combat really shines. These encounters take skill and planning that is sorely missing from the rest of the game.
Platforming has long been a defining feature of the franchise, but here it has regressed to very basic traversal. A couple (literally) of areas allow for some modest exploration, but to progress the game outlines extremely obvious and easy-to-navigate paths for you to follow that consist of following non-diverging paths, looking for the numerous objects painted in glowing white paint, and simple easy jumps and climbs. Linearity is not a bad thing;in fact I believe that linearity allows for increased complexity in level design, however this is not the case with this game. Later sections of the game have more platforming, but it never progresses beyond very basic jumping and climbing. There is never a need to figure out how to proceed or do timed/tricky jumps.
Some puzzles are very nicely designed visually, but they are too few and so simple that not a single one takes more than a few minutes to figure out. At most you might get stumped due to overthinking the solution.
QTEs and high-action sequences which are really QTEs with a veiled sense of control abound. It was so aggravating to enter an area where it finally seemed like some thoughtful exploration and puzzle solving would take the lead only for the area Lara was in to suddenly fall apart and trigger a mindless action-packed, slide, QTE, or running and jumping sequence.
Collectibles are another staple of the franchise. In previous installments they were secrets that were hidden in areas that took skill to find and/or get to. In this game they are just strewn about. The most interesting collectibles (documents and relics) are for the most part sitting in plain sight along the main paths. GPS caches and challenges are very boring and amount to pixel hunts. Never is anything hidden in an interesting way that takes skill to locate or reach. The rewards are pitiful. If finding the collectible isn't challenging enough to be a reward in and of itself, then the collectible itself should be made substantially rewarding. Old Tomb Raider collectibles were both rewarding to find and gave substantial rewards in-game.
The salvage and XP systems are largely just for busywork.
Level Design:
There are some lovely areas on this island, especially the last few sections of the game. Unfortunately I feel as though a lot of the concepts are wasted. Many areas exist for Lara to just destroy in a bombastic action sequence or to shoot guys in. The overabundance of humans on the island harms some of beauty and ancient mystery of the island as the shanty theme is omnipresent. Too much is invested on the island's current inhabitants.
Apart from about 2 areas, the areas are brain-dead linear, and even in those 2 areas they are more like brain-dead linear paths that just happen to intersect and exploration is only really for if you failed to be attentive enough in your first goes on each path. As I said, linearity itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's what they do with it. There is very little sense of accomplishment to an area or sequence in the game. The high action focus even results in a few areas just self-destructing before you really even get to explore them; at least 1 interesting area exists solely for Lara to destroy it in a psuedo-QTE.
Overall:
The game is enjoyable. It's not a bad game, but it's not a good game either. Everything about it is incredibly basic. As a new franchise by an inexperienced developer introducing new ideas, this could be seen as a good start. But CD isn't inexperienced, this isn't a new IP, and the ideas aren't new, either. It is not good to regress this far backwards in so many areas of a franchise that is already established. And even acknowledging that they were aiming to bring in fans of Uncharted and did not want to scare off new people, Uncharted already exists. There is no need to make another Uncharted to introduce Uncharted fans to Tomb Raider, they already played Uncharted. Hook them in with a slow start if need be and then introduce more complex Tomb Raidery mechanics. This entire game feels like an introductory level that never gets past that. It never introduces players to more complex platforming, puzzle, and level design concepts. It has survival instinct, which should allow them to get away with introducing some challenge to the gameplay without making it too frustrating for those who don't wish to be troubled with much thinking, but it is completely superfluous with the way the game is designed.
I honestly don't mind if they want to improve the combat or introduce some story telling, but they should be good and not come at the expense of the platforming, puzzles, and level design in general. The game has underlying interesting concepts that are buried under the overabundant combat and never get beyond an introductory level of skill when there should be no reason for the game to be this easy; being a reboot is not an excuse. They could definitely build something better with what they made here (they should have done it with this game) but what incentive do they have to do so when many gamers are content with just this level and people that want more, at least a level that had already been attained, are written off as "haters"? The game is a step forward in art design and combat, but a huge step backwards in pretty much every other area.
I don't think most would care about her sexuality so much as why it would matter to the game in the first place. She was voluptuous in the old games, but the only thing she loved was adventure. They've been adding too many supporting cast members; Lara really doesn't need a love interest regardless of gender.
This game is a masterpiece in every way.
Fun puzzles, interesting platforming, decent story, and great main character.
AI is decent, and the combat is very fun, much better than uncharted's.
Overall it is an excellent reboot and I see the team coming up with better puzzles and hopefully making the next game slightly less cinematic so that all the fans can be pleased.
Nah, it only says that Sam found the guys cute, not that Lara did.
"...And the hiking trip on the South face of Kilimanjaro, all Lara wanted to do was study ruins, but who knew we'd run into so many cute guys? Not Lara, haha."
It's only from Sam's perspective. Semantics into how you read that, obviously, but considering the writer specifically kept any love interest out of Lara's origin story, people are left to speculate, as they will inevitably do. Queue all of the subtext that people see (or want to see, perhaps).
Sad to hear about no single player DLC. It makes sense, but I'm def. not interested in the multiplayer. Hoping CD expands on the player's freedom to do things in the sequel a bit, but as of now, I'm on bored.
Nah, it only says that Sam found the guys cute, not that Lara did.
"...And the hiking trip on the South face of Kilimanjaro, all Lara wanted to do was study ruins, but who knew we'd run into so many cute guys? Not Lara, haha."
It's only from Sam's perspective. Semantics into how you read that, obviously, but considering the writer specifically kept any love interest out of Lara's origin story, people are left to speculate, as they will inevitably do. Queue all of the subtext that people see (or want to see, perhaps).
Sad to hear about no single player DLC. It makes sense, but I'm def. not interested in the multiplayer. Hoping CD expands on the player's freedom to do things in the sequel a bit, but as of now, I'm on bored.
I figured they were trying to paint Lara as mostly focused on her research and that Sam was trying get her to have some fun.
Encountered a few glitches on my playthrough...one was falling through the world in one of the tombs, and the other was just hilarious.
I was on a platform with a pickaxe wall in front of me that had a zipline attached near the top of it...when I jumped to use the axe and climb the wall Lara instead jumped a solid 30 feet straight up and grabbed the zipline.
I'm really enjoying this game. Quite different to older Tomb Raider games, but I think it's a good different. Looking forward to future Tomb Raider games.
Right, but that's still coming from Sam's perspective, and is colored from her own opinion. It doesn't really define Lara at all as an individual.
Having fun with someone of the opposite gender (or what I took it to mean, that Sam's basically was Lara's "don't be so serious" foil) doesn't mean you're necessarily attracted to them. Basically what MG310 said. But I digress, it's not necessarily relevant, and there's a thread on this already here
You pretty much summed up my thoughts on the game. It's exceedingly average. Painfully so, even.
I think that at in a few instances, it manages to become more than the sum of its parts, particularly when the story allows you to have a bit of freedom in exploration such as the mountain village or when something interesting happens like falling into the Descent blood river, climbing out, and stealthing some guards.
But the rail/guided sections do seem to last too long/are too frequent, and turn it from a game into more of an guided tour experience at times.
Agreed, the level of nitpicking and 'backlash' this game has got is... odd. Not saying it deserves universal priase, but it does so many things right I can forgive a misstep here and there.
It doesn't really feel like Tomb Raider anymore but that doesn't have to be a bad thing.
It seems to alternate between taking bits of Uncharted for the tightly scripted stuff and the combat, Hitman Absolution for the way you move during stealth areas and close combat, and Batman: Arkham Asylum for level layout and traversal.
It's hard to articulate this but to me there's been a certain way that the western games published by Square Enix feel. It seems like you could pretty much exactly predict what a Legacy of Kain reboot would be like based on playing Arkham Asylum, Tomb Raider, and maybe even throw a bit of Deus Ex in there.
I'm at the beach now. First time boredom and monotony has set in. The characters and narrative aren't quite enough to break up the pacing, and I'm finding things a tad repetitive and sparse. Hopefully it picks up again soon.
Agreed, the level of nitpicking and 'backlash' this game has got is... odd. Not saying it deserves universal priase, but it does so many things right I can forgive a misstep here and there.
Everyone hates Resident Evil 6 for not being Resident Evil 4.
Everyone hates DmC for not being Devil May Cry.
Everyone hates Tomb Raider for not being Tomb Raider PSX or Old CD TR.
Under these situations, people will pick out plenty of flaws that otherwise would have been passable and proclaim garbage.
At least that's what I've observed. I love this TR and it's far from perfect, but it's promising and the most interesting TR I've ever played. (Yes, I only played the other CD TR's, but I could never get in to the controls of the PSX ones)
Currently juggling Revengeance, Ni No Kuni, Vanquish, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Far Cry 3, and Tomb Raider. That's not counting the current Vita/PSP games I'm playing and I still have a major backlog on PS3/PC, so don't you talk to me about not playing many games.
Yes, I do say that, in fact. It really doesn't have a solid "personality" to it. The spectacle setpieces never really wowed me like other action games. Combat doesn't feel quite as fluid as it should (though a great improvement over past games). Exploration is its strong point, but ultimately rather shallow and needed much fleshing out. If Far Cry 3 were in third-person and had platforming mechanics, it'd be a better "a survivor is born"/tomb-raiding game than Tomb Raider.
Oh, and can't say I've played much TR beyond parts of Anniversary and Underworld, so I'm no TR fan trying to nitpick.
Everyone hates Resident Evil 6 for not being Resident Evil 4.
Everyone hates DmC for not being Devil May Cry.
Everyone hates Tomb Raider for not being Tomb Raider PSX or Old CD TR.
Under these situations, people will pick out plenty of flaws that otherwise would have been passable and proclaim garbage.
At least that's what I've observed. I love this TR and it's far from perfect, but it's promising and the most interesting TR I've ever played. (Yes, I only played the other CD TR's, but I could never get in to the controls of the PSX ones)
TR is nothing like RE6 or DmC though. It's got great character redesign, it's from the same developer, and they clearly knew what game they wanted to make and achieved it brilliantly.
The old games were great fun for exploring tombs and solving puzzles, but ultimately forgettable for me. And the old Lara might as well be a cardboard cutout with boobs.
I'd like to see if CD can incorporate more of the old into the next one, but if they don't, I'll still gladly buy a sequel just like this first one *ducks*
A lot of games are bad, true. This game isn't bad. But that the gameplay in this game never evolves past a very low to average level of quality and/or quantity in terms of how much player agency matters. It's well-made and controls great, but the gameplay itself is extremely basic and unchallenging.
Just because a lot of games are bad doesn't make this game "OMG amazing!" by default and exempt from valid criticism. You can enjoy a game and think it was much less than it should have been based on previous installments and franchise focus. The low quality/quantity of the platforming and puzzles really brings the game down for me. I liked what was there, but there was very little of it and it was too easy. The combat was improved, but the combat was crap and marginalized in the old games. Now they got it to an average level, but more than half the combat is monotonous and tiring wave combat that often kills the pace and replaces what would have been puzzles and platforming. Just because the majority of games are crap doesn't mean I'm going to lower the bar of quality so that anything that gets above it gets an A.
Everyone hates Resident Evil 6 for not being Resident Evil 4.
Everyone hates DmC for not being Devil May Cry.
Everyone hates Tomb Raider for not being Tomb Raider PSX or Old CD TR.
Under these situations, people will pick out plenty of flaws that otherwise would have been passable and proclaim garbage.
At least that's what I've observed. I love this TR and it's far from perfect, but it's promising and the most interesting TR I've ever played. (Yes, I only played the other CD TR's, but I could never get in to the controls of the PSX ones)
I don't think people want Old TR in HD. I want this game to have a level of platforming, puzzles, and level design complexity comparable to those games. I don't want to feel like I'm going on a guided tour of Uncharted Island. I want to feel like my exploration actually took some thinking and skill. I want more puzzles and tombs and more complex puzzles and tombs. I don't want to enter a badass looking area only for it to turn into a shooting sequence and self destruct into a mindless action scene after a 1 minute easy puzzle and hardly any exploration.
"This is NeoGAF" and "haters gonna hate" are not valid criticism or a valid counterpoint. They are strawmen and ad hominems.
Those are valid reasons to criticize all of those games. You may personally not agree with that, but that's because you and the people criticizing the games are approaching the issue from different perspectives and with different expectations. Saying "This is a new game, it shouldn't be weighed down by the baggage of the old series" is valid, and so is saying "This is a Tomb Raider game, and it should be viewed through the lens of what a Tomb Raider game means to me." It's 100% a matter of perspective and a conflict in opinions that is different for each person.
You, and the people talking about "haters" and "nitpicking" and "why are you posting in this topic if you're going to be so damn negative?" are just trying to pigeonhole a perfectly valid way of viewing a game (either as needlessly negative or too focused on the past or whatever) so that you don't have to engage with it on a critical level and can just pretend that the people who hold it are silly fops who don't look at things the right way. In my opinion, that's pretty goddamned annoying. This topic has been full of really good arguments and discussion on both sides of the issue, with really well-thought out opinions and interesting posts. But you (and I'm not just singling you out, a number of people are doing it) seem hell-bent on making everybody with a different perspective out to be fundamentally wrong, and I think it is a really shitty way to act on a discussion forum.
Those are valid reasons to criticize all of those games. You may personally not agree with that, but that's because you and the people criticizing the games are approaching the issue from different perspectives and with different expectations. Saying "This is a new game, it shouldn't be weighed down by the baggage of the old series" is valid, and so is saying "This is a Tomb Raider game, and it should be viewed through the lens of what a Tomb Raider game means to me." It's 100% a matter of perspective and a conflict in opinions that is different for each person.
You, and the people talking about "haters" and "nitpicking" and "why are you posting in this topic if you're going to be so damn negative?" are just trying to pigeonhole a perfectly valid way of viewing a game (either as needlessly negative or too focused on the past or whatever) so that you don't have to engage with it on a critical level and can just pretend that the people who hold it are silly fops who don't look at things the right way. In my opinion, that's pretty goddamned annoying. This topic has been full of really good arguments and discussion on both sides of the issue, with really well-thought out opinions and interesting posts. But you (and I'm not just singling you out, a number of people are doing it) seem hell-bent on making everybody with a different perspective out to be fundamentally wrong, and I think it is a really shitty way to act on a discussion forum.
No, I am merely stating that there are well explained reasons some parts are bad, but saying the game is crap is as bad as saying it's GOTY in my opinion. There are things to be fixed, for sure, but a lot of people bring in all this unwarranted hate. For Resident Evil, people complained that the controls were crap, and the game was trash for it. This is unfounded. Watch any good Mercenaries playthrough, and you'll understand that the controls were spot on. There aren't tombs, there's not much character developement aside from Lara, and even there's it's in short supply. There are actiony setpieces, with quick time events. There are headshot bonuses. There is easy platforming. Plenty of people find the game fun, so there must be something resonating with them. Regardless, it's not a terrible game. Terrible games don't get the amount of love this game is getting. Even if You or I don't agree with it, this game is successful in it's objective of rebooting the series in a way that the general playerbase enjoys.
Also, when I said, "Everyone hates" I didn't specifically mean their opinion, more that whenever the question is brought up, the sarcastic and weightless negativity seems to rise. I'm all for people saying they didn't like the controls in RE6, and that they should go back to RE4 style controls, but I can't stand when someone says, "The game is garbage, crap controls, crap game." I was asking why the certain poster was posting here, because the way he'd worded his post made it seem as if he was spouting negatives without reason. Simply saying this game suck doesn't add to the discussion.
I hope you can at least relate to that notion. I'm sorry if I come off as trying to make everyone opposite feel wrong.
In criticism, you can't say you don't like something, you must say what exactly you don't agree with and why you feel that way.
...
