Tomb Raider review - why ours isn't online yet
News
Update: Review coming as soon as possible.
Update - 28.02.2013: We're pleased to say that we've worked with Square Enix on mutually agreeable terms, meaning our Tomb Raider review will be on the site early next week. We would like to point out that our previous disagreement had nothing to do with review scores.
Original story: Today the Tomb Raider review embargo lifts. We had hoped to bring you our review alongside the rest that will appear online today. Sadly, we're unable to do that.
We did not agree with terms in the NDA provided by Square Enix, and therefore were not provided a copy of Tomb Raider ahead of release. Attempts to work with Square Enix on a new NDA with agreeable terms failed.
We will bring you a review as soon as possible.
Highest Rated Comment
munkee
EDIT:
Just a quick note for the TD. Videogamer relies on publishers providing content (previews, interviews, events, trailers, promos) for them to stay competitive in this industry. Without this content they will lose traffic at an alarming rate. Less traffic, less advertising, less money, less staff, less content, less readers.. It's a slippery slope. NDA's are professional, legal documents. They're to be taken very seriously. The risk involved isn't worth it just to entertain a few readers. It's peoples business and careers on the line here.
User Comments
Clockpunk
There are, however, a few caveats... the combat does seem rather simplistic, AI a little... daft, the scrap salvage is called just that - no attempt to mask it a little with different types of material (which would have been nice), no provision made for requiring food and fresh water (animals just yielding XP - at the moment...), and - most glaringly of all - Lara's wounds require no attending. A little nap in front of a camp fire, and all manner of ills and harm were cured, just like that. The accursed auto regen is as glaringly out of place as feared. I suppose there's a remote chance Eidos might add a 'True TR' mode, eschewing that regen, and requiring medic packs, bandages and the likes to heal... but sadly I doubt such will happen - and it is a shame, for such a mechanic (a la MGS 3, which got so many more advanced things right a whole generation ago) would have truly made the game something special.
But, on the whole, it seems like it will be an enjoyable experience - one that I want to take my time with. A lot of QTEs, but I am hoping this is just because it is still opening up the world/game.
altaranga@ pblive
Rambolike@ Grammartron
Rambolike
Grammartron
Neon-Soldier32@ CheekyLee
CheekyLee
EverTheOptimist@ munkee
munkee
EDIT:
Just a quick note for the TD. Videogamer relies on publishers providing content (previews, interviews, events, trailers, promos) for them to stay competitive in this industry. Without this content they will lose traffic at an alarming rate. Less traffic, less advertising, less money, less staff, less content, less readers.. It's a slippery slope. NDA's are professional, legal documents. They're to be taken very seriously. The risk involved isn't worth it just to entertain a few readers. It's peoples business and careers on the line here.
MJTH@ DancingRhino
The truth is that originally the game was not meant to be a true sequel, but a spin off series for the downloadable market. It was supposed to be called something like Sonic Short Adventures (or something like that). However, the higher ups at SEGA, paying the dev Dimps to make the game, saw the likes of MegaMan 9 rebooting a successful franchise, so in the end decided to market to game as sonic 4 in order to sell more.... Which inevitably was what lead to the fan backlash in the end.
... A bit off topic from the conversation, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
CheekyLee@ DancingRhino
Just adding my voice to those that appreciate the refusal to review under what you judge to be unfair duress. I would also like to add my weight to those asking what the NDA conditions were, as if you haven't signed it then what else is there for you to lose by releasing these details now? Is it akin to the EA Sim City thing, where they want to watch you play? Or did they only allow you to publish pre-release if you went above a certain mark or allowed them to actually read the review first? (Gametrailers, who are another one where the review doesn't really match the score, and who state they have actually altered the final paragraph of their review.)
DancingRhino@ MJTH
I think she gave sonic 4, 9 out of 10 when it was clearly broken. Not totally trust worthy imo.
s_h_a_d_o
These days, given my growing disappointment with the quality of the end-product, I rarely feel the compulsion to dive head-first into a purchase - I'd rather wait for a consensus of opinion, before taking the plunge. The only downside to that is maintaining one's distance from an exposure to spoiler material.
Hell, I only just picked up Mass Effect 3! (for a song I might add).
pblive
FantasyMeister@ Clockpunk
I think I'll be picking the game up regardless (albeit not day one, it's been on my 'to get' list for a bit but never in the 'must have it nao' category), haven't seen anything negative about it since the marketing machine started rolling.