Reakce na špatné recenze TR:TLR z roku 1999
Momentálně se šťourám v těch nejstarších článcích o Tomb Raideru a Laře, které existují. Věděli jste například, že existovalo už od 30. listopadu 1996 několik fanouškovských webových stránek a teprve 26. prosince vznik oficiální web tombraider.com?Důvod proč se hrabu v historii je, abych zjistila opravdu původní rok Lařina narození. Zatím nejstarší biografii mám z roku 1997, kde stojí jasně rok narození 1967.Proč to dělám? Protože co se týče roku Lařina narození, každý zná a uctívá jiný rok. Který je ale ten opravdu původní? Neupravený? Neomlazující Laru? Budu vás brzo informovat, jak pokračuje vyšetřování :)Mezitím jsem narazila na tento velmi zajímavý článek, který byl napsán v roce 1999 jako reakce na nefér recenze o TR:TLR, které vycházely. Četli jste někdy některé? Já ano a tihle dva mají naprostou pravdu. Lépe bych to nevystihla, přesvědčte se sami níže.
Review Rant -An editorial by Chris Durhan and Jason Lord
Fed up with the mediocre reviews, and bashing made by "many" so-called reviewers of online and print magazines, myself and Chris Durhan of Lara's Temple decided to write up a little editorial venting some of our frustrations. If feedback is positive we might continue to do future editorials like this, so don't be afraid to e-mail us your opinions.
Why do they hate me? sniff sniff Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation, just like Tomb Raider III, and to some degree Tomb Raider II, have been unjustly criticized by reviewers of many video game magazines, as well as on-line video game sites. There is nothing wrong with a reviewer expressing his/her opinions mind you, but what ever happened to keeping an open mind about each game being reviewed? Most reviewer's minds have been made up before the review process even begins. I think PC.IGN summed it up best when they said "...the announcement of a new Tomb Raider game months ago was received with a collective groan by members of the gaming press..." Does this sound like a group of people who would fairly judge a game? And what do previous versions of Tomb Raider have to do with TR: TLR? Is it really necessary to bring up the past games, in a review for TR: TLR? I don't hear them saying "Well, Quake 3 is nothing original, we were riding those elevators, running down those long hallways, and shooting our buddies in the original Quake. Just how many weapons can one man carry, anyway?" It's sad too, especially in this day and age when so many people depend on purchasing a game by a review. Just think of all the people that decided not to purchase TR: TLR based on a review.
PC.IGN... "They've added locations, thrown in a couple of vehicles, but at its core the graphics look dated, the levels are still the same "pull switch and run through door" formula, and she still controls like a rusty tank." Videogames.com... "The graphics are grainy as hell, showing the age of the PlayStation and the Tomb Raider game engine all in one go." Hey, well over 16 Million copies sold say graphics aren't everything, although TR: TLR looks awesome on a PC running 32-bit color (grainy? don't think so). And since when did reviews of games need to get vulgar? PC.IGN... "I'm not even surprised that Lara's gotten smooth and detailed enough to show that not only are her shorts tight, but that they actually crawl up into the crack of her ass." (which they do NOT). If the character is to be believable, shouldn't he/she look as detailed as possible? So what if Lara's physical shape makes her out to be a voluptuous woman, that is just the way her creators want her to look. If we are concentrating on physical appearance, then why isn't Duke Nukem's shape brought into question? Does he have to supposedly reflect the most macho man alive? Well he does in the eyes of his creators, but have you ever heard a game reviewer say "Duke's arms are just too big around. And is that a bulge I see?" Nope, not once. (If I hear the phrase Lara's "assets" one more damn time...) So why must we target Lara's physical shape, when all others go un-noticed? And while we are still on the vulgar subject, I don't think I will ever forget PC Gamer's remark on TR Gold. "...another 4 levels of T&A...;" (extremely uncalled for) I do not believe it was Lara's "T&A;" that kept me playing... :\
Reviewers also love to complain about the dated engine, but I have yet to play an adventure game in the third person perspective that has a better engine then Tomb Raider. Ever played the highly acclaimed Die By The Sword? The most hideous control, outdated graphics, and clipping problems I have ever seen in a 3rd person adventure from the late '90s. Even Lucas Art's brand-new Indiana Jones game is far inferior to the TR engine. The Playstation version obviously is showing some age, but what can you expect out of a 5 year old gaming machine? Think about this for a sec, isn't gaming supposed to be mainly based on the actual game play, the "fun factor", rather then how good the game looks? Sure any game can have flashy graphics, all that eyecandy may keep you for an hour or so, but will you play it non-stop to the end if it is just no fun or has poor control? Didn't think so. Incite PC... "this style of puzzle-based adventure, with its repetitive, find-the-key, unlock-the-door game play, is getting stale. It's time to think of a new way to be a tomb raider in the new millennium." I do not understand the one-way criticism here... how many more Unreal or Quake sequels wilI be spawned before a reviewer says "this style of 1st person shoot-em-up, with it's repetitive ride-the-elevator, go-down-the-hallway, shoot-the-opponent gameplay, is getting stale. It's time to think of a new way to be a mass murderer in the new millennium." I don't see any new amazing gameplay innovations in either of these from their originals, or even from such older games as Doom and Wolfenstien! Unreal and Quake are the same game, with revamped graphics, new maps to play, and the same old engine albeit updated. Yet, reviewers love these games. Like I said, the number of sales speaks for itself.
Why do they hate me? sniff sniff Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation, just like Tomb Raider III, and to some degree Tomb Raider II, have been unjustly criticized by reviewers of many video game magazines, as well as on-line video game sites. There is nothing wrong with a reviewer expressing his/her opinions mind you, but what ever happened to keeping an open mind about each game being reviewed? Most reviewer's minds have been made up before the review process even begins. I think PC.IGN summed it up best when they said "...the announcement of a new Tomb Raider game months ago was received with a collective groan by members of the gaming press..." Does this sound like a group of people who would fairly judge a game? And what do previous versions of Tomb Raider have to do with TR: TLR? Is it really necessary to bring up the past games, in a review for TR: TLR? I don't hear them saying "Well, Quake 3 is nothing original, we were riding those elevators, running down those long hallways, and shooting our buddies in the original Quake. Just how many weapons can one man carry, anyway?" It's sad too, especially in this day and age when so many people depend on purchasing a game by a review. Just think of all the people that decided not to purchase TR: TLR based on a review.
PC.IGN... "They've added locations, thrown in a couple of vehicles, but at its core the graphics look dated, the levels are still the same "pull switch and run through door" formula, and she still controls like a rusty tank." Videogames.com... "The graphics are grainy as hell, showing the age of the PlayStation and the Tomb Raider game engine all in one go." Hey, well over 16 Million copies sold say graphics aren't everything, although TR: TLR looks awesome on a PC running 32-bit color (grainy? don't think so). And since when did reviews of games need to get vulgar? PC.IGN... "I'm not even surprised that Lara's gotten smooth and detailed enough to show that not only are her shorts tight, but that they actually crawl up into the crack of her ass." (which they do NOT). If the character is to be believable, shouldn't he/she look as detailed as possible? So what if Lara's physical shape makes her out to be a voluptuous woman, that is just the way her creators want her to look. If we are concentrating on physical appearance, then why isn't Duke Nukem's shape brought into question? Does he have to supposedly reflect the most macho man alive? Well he does in the eyes of his creators, but have you ever heard a game reviewer say "Duke's arms are just too big around. And is that a bulge I see?" Nope, not once. (If I hear the phrase Lara's "assets" one more damn time...) So why must we target Lara's physical shape, when all others go un-noticed? And while we are still on the vulgar subject, I don't think I will ever forget PC Gamer's remark on TR Gold. "...another 4 levels of T&A...;" (extremely uncalled for) I do not believe it was Lara's "T&A;" that kept me playing... :\
Reviewers also love to complain about the dated engine, but I have yet to play an adventure game in the third person perspective that has a better engine then Tomb Raider. Ever played the highly acclaimed Die By The Sword? The most hideous control, outdated graphics, and clipping problems I have ever seen in a 3rd person adventure from the late '90s. Even Lucas Art's brand-new Indiana Jones game is far inferior to the TR engine. The Playstation version obviously is showing some age, but what can you expect out of a 5 year old gaming machine? Think about this for a sec, isn't gaming supposed to be mainly based on the actual game play, the "fun factor", rather then how good the game looks? Sure any game can have flashy graphics, all that eyecandy may keep you for an hour or so, but will you play it non-stop to the end if it is just no fun or has poor control? Didn't think so. Incite PC... "this style of puzzle-based adventure, with its repetitive, find-the-key, unlock-the-door game play, is getting stale. It's time to think of a new way to be a tomb raider in the new millennium." I do not understand the one-way criticism here... how many more Unreal or Quake sequels wilI be spawned before a reviewer says "this style of 1st person shoot-em-up, with it's repetitive ride-the-elevator, go-down-the-hallway, shoot-the-opponent gameplay, is getting stale. It's time to think of a new way to be a mass murderer in the new millennium." I don't see any new amazing gameplay innovations in either of these from their originals, or even from such older games as Doom and Wolfenstien! Unreal and Quake are the same game, with revamped graphics, new maps to play, and the same old engine albeit updated. Yet, reviewers love these games. Like I said, the number of sales speaks for itself.
Originál zde.
Publikováno 12/23/99
Komentáře
Okomentovat