MadCap's Mad Rantings - "Multiplayer? In MY Tomb Raider? It's More Unnecessary Than You Think"

As we close out 2012 (good job on predicting the end there, Mayans!) I've had my attention drawn to this article from IGN.  Crystal Dynamics Global Brand Director Karl Stewart has announced via his Twitter that the new Tomb Raider game to come out in 2013 will include online multiplayer. And I've made my comments on the trailer back in June, so there's no real point in rehashing what I thought of it. Like I said back then, I've never played a Tomb Raider game before, but with this being a reboot, this seemed like potentially a good place to jump onboard and see if Miss Lara Croft

And then this happened...

Now, I've got nothing against multiplayer - provided that all three people are in the same room with me and are therefore bound to have at least the semblance of civility and basic knowledge of the English language.  But when a franchise that has not had - or, apparently, needed - multiplayer for nine entries of its series and then suddenly makes the jump, it just has one question spring to my mind.

Why?

Granted, most of Tomb Raider's appeal is based upon the heroine and her two best friends, but the franchise has managed to last this long without any issue coming up that it needed to be anything more than single player.  And anyone who says that games have to be multiplayer now to compete in the market nowadays, I have one word for you.

Skyrim.

Not convinced? I'll follow that up with three more words.

Dragon Age: Origins.

When multiplayer gets tacked on to a game as - in my experience - it always seems to be if at all, it had nothing at all to do with the game itself, which is a big reason why I don't review the multiplayer aspect of games I review (if at all).  And because of multiplayer being tacked on, the main game itself almost always suffers.  For an example, I'll give the Halo franchise.

The first game had a multiplayer aspect, but it was always among the local network on Xbox (As I remember, the PC version was full internet, though I could be wrong as I never played the PC version).  Halo had a great story, in my humble opinion, and the development team was allowed to focus strictly on it and made something that was pretty awesome.

Then we come to Halo 2, where multiplayer was touted as a big deal and the game itself suffered immensely for it.  At least, that's the approach I'm taking for the pointless cliffhanger and overall a very, very short campaign.  Bungie's development team was spread too far and focused too far on an aspect that should not have been a high priority.

Flashforward to Halo 3 and you get a storyline that you get dropped into and you only really understand if you have bought Bungie and Microsoft's line of spin-off books and memorabilia (Order now, kids, or the Covenant wins!) that take place between Halo 2 and 3.  This is another problem entirely that I have with Halo, but I'm getting off topic.  While Halo 3 gave an alright conclusion to the series (though not enough for Microsoft, it would seem), the storyline was again rather shortened and the pacing suffered, as did the campaign as a whole.

But the multiplayer side got some new map packs and some customization options through DLC and if you buy into Mountain Dew and Doritos, you get extra codes for more points and...really? All of this work - development and marketing and all - got put into something that really shouldn't have been the main focus of the game in the first place. Really?

This is kind of what I fear might happen with this new Tomb Raider.  What doesn't help is that we've already been told that the game will take roughly twelve to fifteen hours, which is only a few hours more than it took me to navigate my way through Halo 2.  And this being before the development team revealed multiplayer.  I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt for the time being and hope that they don't completely ruin any potential storyline by putting too much focus on the multiplayer aspects.

And again, I have no problems with multiplayer games.  But, that's just the thing, they're multiplayer games. Very rarely is there any way to have single and multiplayer exist in a way that doesn't damage the other in at least some way, to the point where one of the other becomes absolutely unnecessary.  It's about finding balance, something that even the best of development teams can't seem to do. The new Tomb Raider looks like it's going for a grittier, more realistic portrayal of the franchise, and I'm honestly hoping that it will allow us to look past the boobs that have been the object of many a man's ogling since the late nineties and see an interesting action-adventure survival game that, hopefully, won't be bogged down by pointless multiplayer.

Then again, maybe the spirit of Jimmy Hoffa will appear to me and reveal to me the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything.

...what? It's just as likely.

Oh God, No...NO!

So...yeah...November, kind of got hooked on Skyrim...and then some other stuff happened with real life and computer trouble and me just not having the gumption to get off my sorry butt and get back to regular posting. Hopefully, I should be able to get back to regular postings once again. While I wasn't able to report on E3 this year as I wanted to (and by reporting I mean saying what I didn't like of what various game companies had brought out), I did want to look at some of the trailers that were presented that caught my interest.

First up, the Dead Space 3 trailer...

Meh...I don't know, I have mixed feelings about this one. While it was true I enjoyed Dead Space 2 a great deal, I criticized how it seemed to become almost an over the top parody of the original Dead Space. This trailer doesn't seem as bright and pretty as 2 was, and indeed seems to be going for the darker, more desolate feel of the original.

The operative word there being seems.

Also, in the trailer I've noticed more focus on Ellie (who, for God knows what reason, has two eyes now instead of the one she was left with at the end of 2) and no sign of Nicole anywhere. So we can only assume that Isaac has completely worked through all of that and we'll not see her mucking around at all in 3.

I've also heard of a distinctive lack of online multiplayer, which honestly is probably the most beautiful thing that EA could have done with this game. Not just considering my strong dislike against competitive multiplayer in general, but part of my problem with 2 was that time and resources were taken away from the excellent single player to work on the multiplayer and it still sucked.  But luckily, EA figured out that it was a really, really dumb move on their part and dropped it to add in a new co-op feature.

The co-op brings in a new character, John Carver, a "merciless soldier" to help Isaac tackle the threat of the Necromorphs. What's his story? I suppose we'll find out, though I have a feeling he's going to end up being the generic space marine that this genre usually farts out that Isaac has proven to not be (after all, he's an engineer, even if he is probably one of the most badass of badass men in the universe).

EA, just make sure we keep the super cool awesome jetpack, please?

And speaking of space marines...

Halo is a series that I have mixed feelings about. I thoroughly enjoyed the first game, like the second game after the complete pile of crap that was the pointless cliffhanger, and liked the third game for enough time to realize that the story had enough plot holes for me to pilot an aircraft carrier through. And before you get on the comments and tell me that 'Oh, Madcap, you need to read all the spin-off material and the comic books...', just shut up. If I want to delve into the expanded universe, then fine, I shouldn't have to in order to understand what the hell is going on in the main series.

Return of the Jedi would be in no way improved if I had gone and read Shadows of the Empire, to use a rather geeky example.

Also, I'm not going to rage on how Bungie is the creative force behind the franchise and how Microsoft is just going to ruin everything. Go ahead and feel free to give your carpal tunnel telling me how wrong I am.

Now on to the actual trailer, it's four years after the Human-Covenant War ended in Halo 3, and it looks like John 117 aka the "Master Chief" is back up and running again. And on a new world, we're reintroduced to the UNSC via the ship Infinity and the Covenant, as well as a seemingly completely new race that appears to be composed of AIs that mercilessly want to disintegrate everything in sight.

We get some gameplay footage of the Chief maneuvering his way through the jungles of this new world dealing with both the Covenant and with this new alien menace (Forerunner, according to a comment that Cortana makes on a weapon the Chief picks up). There's a new look at the HUD, and it doesn't seem to have changed all that much since Halo 3, but I say go with what works and it worked well enough. And for the first time in the series, the Chief apparently can use his fists in combat (not the butt of his weapon in a melee fashion, his actual fists) though it doesn't go all that well for him in the gameplay demo.

Oh, and there's an infrared mode in the Chief's helmet now...not sure why that wasn't brought up before. And his armor actually looks different, too. Weird, seeing as he got that armor in Halo 2 he somehow in between the time leaving Delta Halo in that game and crashing on Earth in Halo 3 that he somehow had a few alterations made to it and he's been locked in a cryo tube for the last four years and now it looks quite a bit different then it did in Halo 3. But at this point, why bother questioning it?

Oh, AND we get some more glimpses of Cortana possibly going crazy due to being an eight year old AI and having only supposed to have been in service for seven years. The condition, called Rampancy by the canon of the series, seems to have Cortana losing her mind as she seems to degenerate into a rather angry woman with glowing eyes. So...lovely stuff there.

Now I'm not big fan of Lara Croft (can't really say the same for her two best friends), but this trailer got my attention. Apparently they're taking the Hollywood approach and rebooting Miss Croft, starting out from scratch. Having never played one of the Tomb Raider games (a cardinal sin of gaming, I'm sure), I have to say it looks kind of interesting, though I spend most of the time watching the trailer wincing over Lara seeming to be stuck in a continuous loop of getting her ass kicked, at least until near the end of the trailer...where she nearly falls to her death from a collapsing cliffside after making a somewhat chuckle-worthy comment about hating tombs.

Not as much to say here as the previous two, but I'm somewhat interested. This might end up being a rental for me at least and, if I think it's all that good, I'll definitely buy it.

 

Dishonored got onto my radar a bit before E3, and I saw the debut trailer, which I liked. The setting - a Neo-Victorian steampunk-ish world with magic interested me, and you just know it's a Bethesda game when you start out in prison.

The gameplay trailer looks good. If I had to give a name to the feeling that the style gives me, it's definitely a Bioshock feel. As if someone were to mix Bioshock, Skyrim, and Fable, if you will. This is one that I am definitely looking forward to.

Also, people, stop crying out for Fallout 4. I don't know about you, but I don't want another rushed, glitchy mess of a game like New Vegas was after launch. Also, considering the ending of Lonesome Road, they clearly need more time in the development of the storyline. 'Cause, y'know...Lonesome Road sucked.

Not that I'm bitter about that or anything.