It's funny how Dead Space 3 ended up with a fairly average response from critics - yet Tomb Raider ended up being game of the year contender. But yet when you look at the gameplay, they're actually very similar games.

I think it's because Dead Space 3 people had high expectations for a tough, gritty survival game, but it ended up being more action-oriented. While TR has much lower expectations of being lame jumping sequences and complicated puzzles that make no sense in the real world but hey it's Tomb Raider, with a pair of tits and short shorts. Which to be honest since the first couple of games really only suits a niche market. TR1's popularity wasn't over it's puzzles anyway. Instead we get an survival-action game.

Both third person shooters with long periods of non-action. Climbing sequences in TR while zero-grav sequences in DS3. An equal amount of simple puzzles - TR usually with fire or weight, DS3 with the force. Slow walk speed, an importance on where you hit the enemy - TR the head, DS3 the limbs. Similar amounts of using cover (yawn) and QTE's (yawn!!!). TR ends up a bit different with the bow and arrow which I stuck with all game long because it was so satisfying to hit fiery head shots, but I always had ammo for the guns. DS3 was far more difficult though, imo. Both have weapon and skill upgrading (what game doesn't lately?).

The layouts were very similar, both a little bit of exploration and backtracking over previous areas, but overall you're always heading for the same destination.

Graphics on par, I loved both tbh. Stories, well sure TR had the better story, it was almost horror the way it started out. Obviously one is island, the other sci-fi. But I'm looking past where they're set.

Anyone else find the two quite similar? Same score from me 8.5/10.

Well time to take a step down... Saints Row 4 next :\ 

 

No, but both good in their own ways. 

Executable files in random torrent downloads, because nothing bad has ever happened doing that. 

I mean sure, third person shooters with survival horror elements, mostly linear level flow with small hub areas along the way, upradable weapons. Puzzles. And gratuitous Uncharted-style QTEs. 

Rick seriously ?
Never had any trouble.
Trusted uploaders, scan tools and some common sense and you are safe.

Now some of the shit we have seen packaged under the guise of DRM though....

I do not understand the thrashing against these convenient DRM free, often portable, versions of the games for paying customers...

Who's bitch are you? 

http://specialreservegames.com/ 

https://www.bluesnews.com/s/180391/arkane-steam-refunds-pc-prey-demo 

Boycott for what reason, exactly? 

PC gamers become a second class citizen. Making someone drop $60 for a chance to play and then having to request a refund as opposed to a demo is silly. I'm not one to boycott game studios but thought I'd clarify.

The funny thing is - if it's been developed on PC then just how much effort would there be required to make a demo? They're idiots. 

I don't know if their stated reasons are the actual ones, but yes making a demo is a lot of effort. 

Most likely the real reason: we aren't anticipating high sales on PC so why bother? 

My thinking here is that the 2 hour time limit of playtime in steam games need to be brought front and center for users.

Let's say you buy Prey. You play the game and decide it's really not for you, but ooops you've played 2.5 hours therefore no refund for you. Steam needs to actively tell players that are approaching the 2 hour cut off so that they may stop playing and get a refund, or continue and accept that the game is worth their time and money.

With something like this in place, all games released on steam technically have a demo in place with no further work required by the developers.

The next step would be to allow everyone to download and play any game for 2 hours without even paying and then being asked for payment when the 2 hour gate is reached. 

Yeah if Steam had a delayed-payment process that way, then that would make for an OK demo approximation -- although for some game types, the first 2 hours of gameplay aren't a great substitute for a slice that is specifically crafted as a demo.

It would really screw over short games though, unless Steam allowed developers to opt out of the delayed-payment model for individual games. 

Steam needs to actively tell players that are approaching the 2 hour cut off so that they may stop playing and get a refund.

That's a good idea.

The next step would be to allow everyone to download and play any game for 2 hours without even paying and then being asked for payment when the 2 hour gate is reached.

I feel a little weird about this one, but I'm not sure why. Maybe this could be an opt-in for devs.

With the abundance of reviewers and 'let's players' on youtube, demos seem almost obsolete. With 10 minutes of research one could determine if a particular game will suit them or not with reasonable accuracy. 

Definitely not a one size fits all thing. I like the opt-in idea! 

If a developer can't be arsed to make a PC demo, then we're talking about a developer who can't be arsed about a lot of things. 

This studio has a perfect track record and are actually dedicated to their craft. I give more credence to what they say than some other AAA studio. Arkane also has put a third of Dishonored 2, one of the very best games by far to come out in the past decade, for free, with compatible saves and all. I can't think of any other big studio that does anything remotely like this. We're talking about 7-8 hours worth of gameplay here.

Also like #9925 says, making a demo is very taxing. I know it since we made one for EYE and it took us a very long time. 

you basically want shareware back 

The problem with a "free for two hours" scheme is that it can really hurt smaller games. For instance, according to steam I played both Quake mission packs in 3 hours each - it's not inconceivable for someone to beat them in less than 2.

There are a lot of smaller games out there that people buy and enjoy. The developers currently enjoy the freedom to sell their game, and gamers don't particularly mind paying for such games.
I'm sure that smaller/shorter games like that are hit pretty hard already by refunds from frugal customers. But similarly, there are plenty of customers who either appreciate the developer's effort enough to support them or are too lazy to bother with requesting a refund when they finish the game.

But if players never had to commit any money to play the game in the first place, only those with copious amounts of spare cash would ever bother to actually pay for these games. Given that almost all (if not all) of these titles are "indie" titles created by up-and-coming devs, it seems a shame to hurt them and their market so drastically...


In other news, it's interesting to see that people are still complaining about the lack of demo versions. It's <current year>, not 2005. 

This would also pervert games to being great for the first 2 hours then meh :D 

Demos usually end up being these weirdly paced, Frankensteined snippets of the game, so I don't think they're a good way to judge whether you'll like the full game. They might be a good way to see if you like the mechanics, the "feel", etc. but they are usually not a good metric for whether the end product is worth your money.

There are so many review sites and places for end users to write reviews that I don't think it's that hard to figure out via word of mouth whether a game will be up your alley or if it's a buggy piece of shit or whatever.

Daz's idea is cool but like Killes says above, there could be (and there have been) some games that have amazing first hours that then kinda fizzle out. 

If some sort of MLM-ish "recruit X to gain Y" model was used. 

For this reason:

They might be a good way to see if you like the mechanics, the "feel", etc.

Obviously the 2 hour refund option on Steam (which I'd never heard of otherwise I'd be about �100 richer from BS games I wasted money on cos I couldn't try a demo) is not at all the same.