This vid looks like it's all in-engine cut-scenes to me (as in, cinematics). The youtube link you've provided does show actual gameplay though.

>> ^shogunkai:

>> ^schlub:
Huh? Is this supposed to be a game? If so, where's the actual footage of gameplay? Because there wasn't any in this video... Also, why does Lara look nothing like what she used to? -- and I don't just mean her chest...

Uhh... I'm pretty sure that was all gameplay footage, just edited together. It's a trailer for the game, not the first 5 minutes of the game.
Here is some gameplay footage from later on in the game.
http://youtu.be/NFhLS7DmLlc

>> ^schlub:

Huh? Is this supposed to be a game? If so, where's the actual footage of gameplay? Because there wasn't any in this video... Also, why does Lara look nothing like what she used to? -- and I don't just mean her chest...


Uhh... I'm pretty sure that was all gameplay footage, just edited together. It's a trailer for the game, not the first 5 minutes of the game.

Here is some gameplay footage from later on in the game.
http://youtu.be/NFhLS7DmLlc

I feel like I watched a trailer for a really good movie and just saw all the good parts. I'll be playing it. Loved Tomb Raider since my Diamond Monster 3D card, though I did skip over the crappier versions.

>> ^UsesProzac:

Huh, I was a single girl on WoW and then I was a taken girl on WoW. Never experienced any of that except for perhaps a little unwanted attention both when single and not. Most of the time gender didn't even come up. There were sometimes jokes about making sandwiches and the like over vent during raids, but that wasn't the drama that usually happened. "Don't stand in fire you fucking idiot." <- That was.
It all depends on the person. It hurts me to see you make sweeping generalities like that.
I met my partner on WoW and now we have a child. I was a troll rogue and then I was a troll priest, just in case anyone was wondering. I didn't do much in the way of alts, spent way too much time on my main, which was the priest. Good luck finding a constant spot in a raid as a melee dps.
I used to raid five days a week and arena the other two. Oh, WoW. I'm glad I have a life outside of it, now!
>> ^Porksandwich:
My experience with women who play WoW, purely from in-game. Most of them pretend to be men, you will rarely find out they are female until you hear their voice and they can't pull off the teen boy. These are usually single and have been creeped on in the past so they don't want cyber stalkers.
OR
They proudly declare they are a woman, but they also happen to be married or at least near-married. They won't inform people of this until it gets weird. Seen it happen many times in guilds where there's a woman whose overly flirty with other members and they think she likes them "in that way" only to find out that after they've helped her do a bunch of a shit..she's married and doesn't appreciate blah blah. Then the guild falls apart because people take sides.
Hell in one guild, a girl pretending to be guy was like dating one of the married men in the guild who was married to one of the women who was flirting around and getting "unwanted" attention after she got what she wanted from people.
I gave up on guilds after this one, because I would rather not be mid-raid and have drama break out over vent/ts due to this stuff. Enough other crap happens with people competing for loot/high scores/etc.



Not meant to be generalities, they are the experiences I had with the game. I think there were 4 women in the guild that I knew of. Could have been more, but I only knew the raiders or longer term members.

One was married to the guild leader, she used to ask for help to complete things and keep us waiting a good hour or two before she showed up. I didn't like her simply because she tried to treat the guild as her errand runners asking for help and having us wait so she could keep constantly busy. She got involved with a guy in the guild (not her husband) and that kicked off some events.

Next was young, and took a lot of the "sandwich" stuff you are talking about. She got involved with the married guild leader, that kicked off another bunch of stuff....probably 10-15 years difference. This is the husband of the one above....they had kids together and it basically split the guild right down the middle. The young girl involved with him had other admirers and tried to play a guy for the longest time only talking during certain raids. She was called all sorts of names once it came to light that she was dating the husband....no one really mentioned the wife doing the same thing. There was one guy she led on for a long time, they were friends and he thought it was more until he found out she was after the married guy. That started another ripple of problems...she left the guild for awhile to try to get him back as a friend, etc. As much stuff happened involving her, I think she did a lot of intentionally or was younger than she claimed. I generally liked her, but I had to wonder with as much stuff that cropped up around her as to what was going on there.

Another "involved" woman, who was either newly married or soon to be married to another guy in the guild was involved with the guy who was involved with the wife of the guild leader...the first woman I mentioned. That guy told me she was sending him pictures, and then she lost it when she found out he was involved with the other woman. Her husband/soon-to-be never suspected afaik. She was nice enough, but I was friends with her husband and I couldn't stand to hang around him anymore knowing all of this and him being in the dark.

Fourth woman was friends with a couple younger guys in the guild. Who used their vault access to steal a bunch of stuff from the vault and switch servers during a free move. She switched with them once it came to light they had stolen. Then renamed herself and came back, trying to hide her identity. She also tried to hide that she was female to the majority of the guild for a long time as well....she'd type most of her replies. Rarely spoke unless it was a tougher raid. I don't know if she had unwanted attention, or just made like she had unwanted attention from a few...because she moved with the guys she complained about on that free server move. The switch and hiding her identity was probably the worst of it involving her, and really she hadn't done anything wrong that anyone could see but she looked guilty as hell doing what she did. Then she defended those guy's actions who stole tabs and tabs of stuff from the vault before they left.

And yeah they all probably stick out because it was a lot of hub-bub involving them, and all the guys and gals involved were all culpable for their actions. But it was one guild that had more than 1 married woman in it and it failed spectacularly... Other guys in the guild would come hang out with me or solo play instead of doing guild stuff because it was toxic to be around most people in the guild with how everyone was supporting one or the other in just overall poor choices and questionable actions.

I am not saying all women in games are like this, but with this one experience with it made me want to stick to non-voice stuff so I couldn't identify the sex of anyone involved. And yeah I'd like to find a female who games.......but I'd actually like to continue enjoying games heh.

I see some good points, but they lose alot of credibility by calling Bain a venture capital firm. It was a private equity firm. There is a huge difference between the two types of firms.>> ^bareboards2:

Factcheck.org takes on this doc in an email today:
Summary
A 28-minute political documentary released this week by a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC presents a one-sided, often distorted and misleading view of Mitt Romney's years leading the venture capital firm Bain Capital.
Interspersed with appropriately eerie music, the video focuses on four Bain-financed companies and features heart-wrenching interviews with people who portray Romney and Bain as ruthless, quick-buck corporate raiders who reaped huge financial rewards at the expense of faithful employees.
But a closer look at the companies highlighted in the video reveals a murkier picture. The video often overstates, or outright distorts, Romney's culpability for job losses or bankruptcies.
The film talks about layoffs at DDi Corp. and discusses questionable manipulation of stock prices after the circuit board company went public. But Romney had left Bain Capital a year before any layoffs and a public stock offering that ultimately netted Bain and Romney a big payday. The company's subsequent bankruptcy filing came two years after Bain had largely divested from the company, and was the result of the dot-com bust. Moreover, the company emerged from bankruptcy, and its current CEO credits those early Bain investments for setting the foundation for the company's current success.
The film claims Romney was involved in the acquisition, management and demise of the now-defunct KB Toys. He wasn't. Bain bought the toy company nearly two years after Romney left Bain.
Likewise, the closing of UniMac's plant in Marianna, Fla., occurred seven years after Romney left Bain and nearly two years after Bain sold UniMac's parent company to another private equity house.
More broadly, the video presents a myopic view of Bain Capital, cherry-picking some of the worst Bain outcomes to portray Bain in the worst possible light. Romney's record at Bain Capital also includes some success stories (see Staples and Sports Authority, to name a few) at companies that added new jobs.

Factcheck.org takes on this doc in an email today:

Summary

A 28-minute political documentary released this week by a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC presents a one-sided, often distorted and misleading view of Mitt Romney's years leading the venture capital firm Bain Capital.

Interspersed with appropriately eerie music, the video focuses on four Bain-financed companies and features heart-wrenching interviews with people who portray Romney and Bain as ruthless, quick-buck corporate raiders who reaped huge financial rewards at the expense of faithful employees.

But a closer look at the companies highlighted in the video reveals a murkier picture. The video often overstates, or outright distorts, Romney's culpability for job losses or bankruptcies.

*The film talks about layoffs at DDi Corp. and discusses questionable manipulation of stock prices after the circuit board company went public. But Romney had left Bain Capital a year before any layoffs and a public stock offering that ultimately netted Bain and Romney a big payday. The company's subsequent bankruptcy filing came two years after Bain had largely divested from the company, and was the result of the dot-com bust. Moreover, the company emerged from bankruptcy, and its current CEO credits those early Bain investments for setting the foundation for the company's current success.

*The film claims Romney was involved in the acquisition, management and demise of the now-defunct KB Toys. He wasn't. Bain bought the toy company nearly two years after Romney left Bain.

*Likewise, the closing of UniMac's plant in Marianna, Fla., occurred seven years after Romney left Bain and nearly two years after Bain sold UniMac's parent company to another private equity house.

More broadly, the video presents a myopic view of Bain Capital, cherry-picking some of the worst Bain outcomes to portray Bain in the worst possible light. Romney's record at Bain Capital also includes some success stories (see Staples and Sports Authority, to name a few) at companies that added new jobs.

Although factcheck.org just issued a debunking email today:

Summary

A 28-minute political documentary released this week by a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC presents a one-sided, often distorted and misleading view of Mitt Romney's years leading the venture capital firm Bain Capital.

Interspersed with appropriately eerie music, the video focuses on four Bain-financed companies and features heart-wrenching interviews with people who portray Romney and Bain as ruthless, quick-buck corporate raiders who reaped huge financial rewards at the expense of faithful employees.

But a closer look at the companies highlighted in the video reveals a murkier picture. The video often overstates, or outright distorts, Romney's culpability for job losses or bankruptcies.

*The film talks about layoffs at DDi Corp. and discusses questionable manipulation of stock prices after the circuit board company went public. But Romney had left Bain Capital a year before any layoffs and a public stock offering that ultimately netted Bain and Romney a big payday. The company's subsequent bankruptcy filing came two years after Bain had largely divested from the company, and was the result of the dot-com bust. Moreover, the company emerged from bankruptcy, and its current CEO credits those early Bain investments for setting the foundation for the company's current success.

*The film claims Romney was involved in the acquisition, management and demise of the now-defunct KB Toys. He wasn't. Bain bought the toy company nearly two years after Romney left Bain.

*Likewise, the closing of UniMac's plant in Marianna, Fla., occurred seven years after Romney left Bain and nearly two years after Bain sold UniMac's parent company to another private equity house.

More broadly, the video presents a myopic view of Bain Capital, cherry-picking some of the worst Bain outcomes to portray Bain in the worst possible light. Romney's record at Bain Capital also includes some success stories (see Staples and Sports Authority, to name a few) at companies that added new jobs.

Some more info:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/12/watch-when-mitt-romney-came-to-town/

“When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” a film about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s time as CEO of Bain Capital, is without a doubt the most serious attack on the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign.

Produced by a former top Romney strategist, the film focuses on people turned out of their jobs at four of the many companies Bain Capital essentially looted, tapping into the popular discontentment with Wall Street to label Romney a “corporate raider.”

The companies — laundry equipment maker UniMac, electronics maker DDI, toy store chain KayBee Toys and office supplier AmPad — were all purchased by Bain and liquidated, “killing jobs for big financial rewards,” the film explains.

“They could care less about us, the way I see it,” one of the film’s subjects explains. “Who am I? Mitt Romney and them guys, they don’t care about who I am.”

The pro-Gingrich PAC Winning Our Future placed a top-dollar bid on the 27-minute film after pro-Romney PACs essentially destroyed Gingrich’s chances in Iowa with a flood of negative advertising that blanketed the airwaves.

“It’s puzzling to see Speaker Gingrich and his supporters continue their attacks on free enterprise,” the Romney campaign said of the Gingrich PAC’s new film. “This is the type of criticism we’ve come to expect from President Obama and his left-wing allies at Moveon.org. Unlike President Obama and Speaker Gingrich, Mitt Romney spent his career in business and knows what it will take to turn around our nation’s bad economy.”

The film comes at just the right time for Gingrich, too: a poll published Wednesday (PDF) found the former House Speaker trailing the former governor in the crucial South Carolina primary by just two percent.

But whether it will be enough to help President Barack Obama in the general election remains to be seen.

This video was published to YouTube on Jan. 11, 2012.

you forgot the sarcasm button... the real job creators are the middle class (or used to be, before they got wiped out)... it's the middle class that consumes manufactured goods and it's the middle class that makes use of skilled labor and it's the middle class that requires trained services... not the (so-called) "job creators" in the 1% >> ^Drachen_Jager:

But, but... I thought billionaires were 'job creators', now you tell me they're 'corporate raiders' who only work for greed? Say it ain't so!

Great clip. I'd be willing to be that Spielberg was heavily into those adventure movies as a kid and had a mixtape constantly going in his head that he used to make Raiders. As opposed to blatantly lifting ideas from old movies. I guess it's probably a bit of both.

Crazy things look like Ceylon Raiders.

As much as I love Raiders and Indiana Jones in general, it's disappointing that all the talking seems to be from the bonus disk on the Indiana Jones Trilogy DVD set

I agree with you in principle but s**t man, relax. It's only the internets. >> ^jackhalfaprayer:

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.
but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.

but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.