Tomb Raider Developer Focuses on Multiplayer DLC

Tomb Raider Developer Focuses on Multiplayer DLC

image

Despite apparent demand, Crystal Dynamics says it has "no plans" to expand the single-player campaign right now.

Tomb Raider is an excellent game, and one of its strengths is the sense of exploration it offers - there are plenty of locations to discover, items to find, and tombs to raid throughout the single-player campaign. One would think that future DLC might include additional areas or tombs to explore, but developer Crystal Dynamics has other intentions: the company has "no plans" to release any single-player DLC for the game in future.

Global brand director Karl Stewart revealed the news in a Reddit AMA after several users asked about the possibility of single-player DLC. "There are currently no plans in place for any Single Player expansions. All of our DLC is based around the Multiplayer experience for now."

When questioned on the rationale behind including multiplayer in a game that has such a strong single-player offering, Stewart said that the company honestly believed that it was the right thing to do. "This is our very first attempt to create a MP experience and with that comes a lot of learning. We will continue to monitor and tweak the experience until we get it right," he said.

Multiplayer or not, the game is still getting plenty of attention. Stewart tweeted that the game had hit one million gamers in less than 48 hours of its launch, with millions more tombs raided, deer eaten and arrows retrieved, among other actions.

If you're keen on more content, "Caves and Cliffs" is the latest DLC pack for Tomb Raider, and it adds three new multiplayer maps to the game. It's currently available on Xbox 360 for 400 MS points, and is coming soon to PlayStation 3 and PC.

Source: Reddit via Videogamer

Permalink

I am reasonably sure that most people didn't pick it up for the multiplayer, but hey, it's their time and money. They'd probably make more with a single player expansion considering it's why most people are into these sorts of games, but then again, perhaps I am just one of those crazy people.

That said, 400MS for three maps is considerably better than the average game with multiplayer. Gears of War and Halo are normally around 800 or so, and isn't COD normally around 1200?

Oh yeah, I forgot this game had multiplayer.

And that right there is probably why no one will be playing the game again anytime soon. Shame, they got so much right in the SP but they are concentrating on that tacked on MP.

Timothy Chang:

Tomb Raider is an excellent game, and one of its strengths is the sense of exploration it offers - there are plenty of locations to discover, items to find, and tombs to raid throughout the single-player campaign.

Wrong. Oh so wrong.. The optional 'tombs' are done in a ridiculously short amount of time, the worst one being the one in that forest with all the flashlight guards wandering about aimlessly. It involved one fire arrow shot to make gas explode, two climbs to get to a high platform, and one jump to get to the chest. And these optional puzzles grant you nothing but extra XP, which is completely unnecessary because you already get enough XP to unlock all the skills by just following the story line. They don't offer any secret items or additional background information about the island, so I never felt motivated to explore at ALL, except when I just needed a bit of XP to unlock a skill I deemed useful. And even then, completing the puzzles felt very unsatisfying, patronizing even. The game tries so hard to be a sandbox, but doesn't give you any motivation to find all the hidden artifacts and optional tombs, other than 'getting 100%' and some XP.

I have a LOT to complain about TR, but this particularly, is one of it's weakest points and the main reason why I resent this game so much. If anything, BECAUSE the sandbox thing was a fiasco, one would expect they'd slap on some DLC with tombs that are actually worth two shits.

I'm kind of disappointed by this news, because I'm not interested in multiplayer at all.

The multiplayer has potential, but it's pretty bland and suffers from a lot of weird quirks. It's fun for a few hours, but I doubt I'll ever come back to it.

Relatively happy to hear this. The single player is a great story and doesn't really need an expansion to it, whereas the multiplayer could use some touch ups and additions. Nice to see the team pushing the boat out and seeing where they can run with this.

More like: "We actually shipped a complete single-player campaign, so if you guys want more content for that you're gunna have to wait awhile."

Wait, Tomb Rider has a multiplayer? WHY?

understandable but TR is more SP focused game. i have never bothered to touch the MP and actually dont care for it either. the SP is what made me get the game and its great.

Since the tomb design in this game is horrible, I can see why they wouldn't want to release more of them. Pretty much every single one of them has 1 extremely easy timing or physics puzzle, with a chest right above it. That's not Tomb Raider, at least as I know it, with giant mechanisms that span several rooms and really alter the environment when solved. Still, the rest of the game is solid, but what could one really add to it? Each of the areas has a purpose to the story, and the story is complete. Maybe in their next game they could work more on the tombs to make them awesome, like Legend's were. I'm not entirely sure why they backtracked so much. I like the survival sandbox design, but I see no reason why the tombs have to suffer for it.

So developers are gonna put a multiplayer strap-on and fuck their own franchise? I dont understand if they're confident or stupid.

Nooo.. Well, honestly I'm not sure how they would fit in more single player, even if I want it. The story doesn't really offer much to expand on, though it would be sweet to get a real tomb, like those in the earlier games.

I understand their position. The single player is very good, but the multiplayer is not bad. It is something worse: it's forgettable. Hope this dlc strength the interest in this game mode. Considering that it's the only weak point in this game (and not a bad one).

I didn't like multiplayer so much. Seems like they're just wasting money on this mode while they can concentrate on making the next game as good as possible.
I wouldn't mind if they have excluded the multiplayer from the game and used that money to make the campaign even longer than it is now.

Aww, boo. I really like the single player of this new Tomb Raider, but the multiplayer felt very stapled-on and not too interesting. Maybe they will have a change of heart later...? I know I'd be all over that. *Crosses fingers*

Carnagath:
I like the survival sandbox design, but I see no reason why the tombs have to suffer for it.

Storywise, there is one - Lara is in situation, where she couldn't give a Fu- about tombs, she currently just wants to survive. And exploring a giant, possibly dangerous tomb is clearly NOT helping that case. In canonial later games, she clearly specifically looking for them (assuming the current level is set in one, of course)
So, if the upcoming games focus on "Lara is looking for tombs", then tombs become more of a focus again, obviously.

Sack of Cheese:
I didn't like multiplayer so much. Seems like they're just wasting money on this mode while they can concentrate on making the next game as good as possible.
I wouldn't mind if they have excluded the multiplayer from the game and used that money to make the campaign even longer than it is now.

My thoughts exactly. The money and time spent on making multiplayer could have gone in to expanding the optional tomb raiding experience, fleshing out the story some more or just making Lara's hair even nicer. I actually still don't believe the game has multiplayer and I'm not going to play it even if the myths are true. Lara Croft wasn't in Gears of War after all, regardless of what the gameplay wants you to think.

Bindal:

Carnagath:
I like the survival sandbox design, but I see no reason why the tombs have to suffer for it.

Storywise, there is one - Lara is in situation, where she couldn't give a Fu- about tombs, she currently just wants to survive. And exploring a giant, possibly dangerous tomb is clearly NOT helping that case. In canonial later games, she clearly specifically looking for them (assuming the current level is set in one, of course)
So, if the upcoming games focus on "Lara is looking for tombs", then tombs become more of a focus again, obviously.

I don't buy the "story card" to be honest, neither from a fan nor from a developer. Storywise, nothing makes sense in this game, apart from running away and occasionally shooting a few people. Killing rats with a shotgun and skinning them to somehow become better at throwing sand in people's faces and reducing your assault rifle's recoil doesn't make sense, neither does having a supposedly traumatized Lara cheerfully comment on the fact that some ashtray that she thought was ancient is in fact made in China, right after she smashed 5 people's skulls in. Yet they are in the game. Does it bother me as a player? A little bit, but it's a game, not a novel by Kafka, so it can't be religiously focused on its story alone. There will be gameplay, and sometimes it will feel a bit disconnected from the story, because there's no way to do it otherwise, apart from making the entire game one long cutscene. From a developer's point of view, if you want to have good tombs in it, you can find many ways to put them in. Here's a simple one: Don't make them optional. If Lara needs to get from point A to point B, occasionally have a tomb in the way, with awesome environmental puzzles, like the ones in the previous games. They don't have to be the focus of the game, but they don't have to be that lazily designed either. Using the story as an excuse there is just that, an excuse.

I actually completely forgot that Tomb Raider had multiplayer. I wondering if anyone even bought this game thinking about the multiplayer.

I've been playing the multiplayer and while I have had some fun it's completely forgettable in all aspects.

Wait Tomb Raider has a multiplayer?

There were a lot of people trying to tell the guy in the AMA that nobody cared about the multiplayer, and I didn't see anyone say they wanted more multiplayer.

I hate it when game companies are bombarded with consumer demand and just ignore it. Then he follows it up with stupid PR garbage.

Did anybody else think that this article was phrased in a very defensive manner? Very desperate not to lose a bad word?

Here's what went through my head, considering there was a massive page takeover ad at some point in the not-so-distant past.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here