IMPORTANT: First let me say what this isn't: this isn't a thread about how devs should ignore fan feedback and trust their vision alone. Although I have no doubt that it's the latter that should be the driving principle in any game and the creators should always have the final word, taking account fan feedback can be important and can often result in a better sequel.
So the thread proper:
A common criticism concerning Shadow of the Tomb Raider is that it has little combat, or at least not as much combat as it should have had. This was always weird to me because the other two games in the (second) Tomb Raider reboot were criticized for having too much of it, especially the first game (I thought the balance in Rise was excellent). So how come this 180?
Undestand why they did it is easy. Indeed, I was just searching a bit about the game and found this interview with the game's director, a small quote from it:
And this makes sense. Although I think it's easy to downplay how much combat there was in the original games, the logic here is sound. To make Shadow closer to the original games, one must change the balance between combat, platforming and puzzles. And by doing that they would be heeding the feedback of many fans, especially long time ones.
So why doesn't it work? (And here I'm obviously agreeing with people saying SotTR has too little combat)
I think it's because the devs failed to see the big picture. They failed to see the many connections between the game's many elements and how changing one or the other might have a negative impact on the final product. Primarily, they failed to see how TR2013 is geared towards combat and action, and how that affects platforming and puzzles. The 2013 game was primarily an action game, not just because of how much combat it had compared to other things, but because of its gameplay focus. It's not only that there was less platforming compared to previous CD games (Legends, Anniversary and Underworld), it's that the platforming mechanics were simplers and with a different objective.
Left is Tomb Raider Anniversary, right is Shadow (same animations from TR2013 and Rise). Call me crazy, but looking at those animations I feel I can clearly see two different approachs to platforming. While in Anniverasary it was about taking your time, moving deliberately and pricesily, in the new trilogy it's about getting it over with asap. And no wonder, a lot of the time there is stuff falling or people shooting at you.
In other words, those mechanics were fully embedded in the action approach TR13 had. And you can't change that by simply adding more platforming, or adding a couple of new tricks. You need to change its core. And so while there was more exploration in Shadow, more platfomirng and puzzles. it wasn't as engaging as it needed to be to carry the game. So the best parts were still the ones with combat, and when you were not doing that, it felt you were playing the worst parts of it. That's why having too much combat in TR13 didn't make the game worse (even if it might make some people like it less), but having too little of it in Shadow did. It's still a game geared for action, and you can clearly see it in the skills you can purchase or the amount of guns you have.
Which brings to the OP's title. Listening to fan feedback is bad when you take it into consideration without having a firm grasp of what consequences that may have in the game. Often changes asked by fans come into direct contradiction with the core of the game, especially in long term franchises that are often reinventing themselves. Personally I like when devs listen to their fanbase. I think it's important. But sometimes it can lead to a worse product.
To finish, I just wanted ot say something about the latest Tomb Raider trilogy, which might be a little weird after this thread: it deserves more love, or at least less hate. Shadow, for all its shortcomings, is still a good game, sometimes really good. While Rise and TR13 are often excellent.
So the thread proper:
A common criticism concerning Shadow of the Tomb Raider is that it has little combat, or at least not as much combat as it should have had. This was always weird to me because the other two games in the (second) Tomb Raider reboot were criticized for having too much of it, especially the first game (I thought the balance in Rise was excellent). So how come this 180?
Undestand why they did it is easy. Indeed, I was just searching a bit about the game and found this interview with the game's director, a small quote from it:
And this makes sense. Although I think it's easy to downplay how much combat there was in the original games, the logic here is sound. To make Shadow closer to the original games, one must change the balance between combat, platforming and puzzles. And by doing that they would be heeding the feedback of many fans, especially long time ones.
So why doesn't it work? (And here I'm obviously agreeing with people saying SotTR has too little combat)
I think it's because the devs failed to see the big picture. They failed to see the many connections between the game's many elements and how changing one or the other might have a negative impact on the final product. Primarily, they failed to see how TR2013 is geared towards combat and action, and how that affects platforming and puzzles. The 2013 game was primarily an action game, not just because of how much combat it had compared to other things, but because of its gameplay focus. It's not only that there was less platforming compared to previous CD games (Legends, Anniversary and Underworld), it's that the platforming mechanics were simplers and with a different objective.
Left is Tomb Raider Anniversary, right is Shadow (same animations from TR2013 and Rise). Call me crazy, but looking at those animations I feel I can clearly see two different approachs to platforming. While in Anniverasary it was about taking your time, moving deliberately and pricesily, in the new trilogy it's about getting it over with asap. And no wonder, a lot of the time there is stuff falling or people shooting at you.
In other words, those mechanics were fully embedded in the action approach TR13 had. And you can't change that by simply adding more platforming, or adding a couple of new tricks. You need to change its core. And so while there was more exploration in Shadow, more platfomirng and puzzles. it wasn't as engaging as it needed to be to carry the game. So the best parts were still the ones with combat, and when you were not doing that, it felt you were playing the worst parts of it. That's why having too much combat in TR13 didn't make the game worse (even if it might make some people like it less), but having too little of it in Shadow did. It's still a game geared for action, and you can clearly see it in the skills you can purchase or the amount of guns you have.
Which brings to the OP's title. Listening to fan feedback is bad when you take it into consideration without having a firm grasp of what consequences that may have in the game. Often changes asked by fans come into direct contradiction with the core of the game, especially in long term franchises that are often reinventing themselves. Personally I like when devs listen to their fanbase. I think it's important. But sometimes it can lead to a worse product.
To finish, I just wanted ot say something about the latest Tomb Raider trilogy, which might be a little weird after this thread: it deserves more love, or at least less hate. Shadow, for all its shortcomings, is still a good game, sometimes really good. While Rise and TR13 are often excellent.
