How long is TRA compared to TRL

[Ring_of_Fire]

I realized that the full version on Trymedia for Tomb Raider Legend is almost 5GB in size compared to TRA's 2GB!

So anybody know the length of both games in terms of gameplay experience?

[Tthe Spirit]

Actually i dont think disk capacity the game teakes is an indication of the length of the game...

TRL is just so shrt compared t TRA...
Thugh TRA had some shrt levels...
but overall it is shorter..

This is bcz when modelling, there are various ways to mdel the same thing..

for example a tree..

you can model the same tree in 2 ways..

one way takes too mny polygons, thus the size of the file will become bigger..
it can be like 20000 polygons..
it increases file size by about 5 mbs...

the same tree can be done with the very same expressions, colors and features using something called alpha channel...

it takes no much space...

it increases file size by less than 1 mb..
sometimes 0.3 kb....

so, many things in TRA are modeled with very low polgons...

that's why it needs less space compared to TRL..

;)

[Lior_K]

I realized that the full version on Trymedia for Tomb Raider Legend is almost 5GB in size compared to TRA's 2GB!

So anybody know the length of both games in terms of gameplay experience?

gameplay experience is hard to calculate since it depends on ones skill and frankly luck (with Crystal's buggy controls and camera). Since both games have TTs you see compare the sum up of these to see what Crystal would consider minimal gameplay time.

[Noodleboy]

You must also concider that TRL's PC version includes both current and next gen in the file. TRA only has current gen.

[TigerEye]

You must also consider that TRL's PC version includes both current and next gen in the file. TRA only has current gen.
So does higher polygon-count plus alpha-channel = TRL's Next Gen?

Btw I saw another trick with a Japanese game-mod, where they perfectly doubled the length and width of their "human textures", which can get HUGE at 4 times the pixels. And then they added actual human images to those larger textures. And finally, they simply allowed their old texture-mappings to display that "near human" image onto their same sized 3d-objects.

(And BTW, there wasn't any crushed details.)
Nope. . . There was simple more "human details" from facial and scowl lines, down to freckles and even skin pours, all being projected onto a very human face.

* So if CD ever wants to get "real", then I might have a new direction to send them, towards? * :cool:

[Thorpe]

Tomb Raider: Anniversary I'd say is at least 3 times Legend.

[Ring_of_Fire]

I also realized that Legend has better graphics than Anniversary.

So I guess the file size depends on both the graphics/gameplay content or features.

You must also concider that TRL's PC version includes both current and next gen in the file. TRA only has current gen.
The Next Gen slowed my computer down to a grinding halt. Even with it turned off it still had better graphics than Anniversary. Anyway, gameplay length is more important.

[Lara Croft!]

Haven't finished it yet. I have long ago abandoned it up to the point with Bacon Lara, but the game is definately more difficult and bigger than Legend.

[trXD]

because trl is next-gen obviously

[Mona Sax]

I'd say it's about twice as long. It shouldn't take more than about 15 hours to complete the first time around.

[TombRaiderLover]

TRL: 3/4 hours
TRA: 5/6 hours

So not much of a difference, unfortunately. ;)

Though when it came to playing the games for the first time:

TRL: 8 hours
TRA: 14 hours