View Full Version : Disappointing? Or just me?
Okay, I've played the Crystal Dynamics games, and A.o.D. (up until the glitches made me stop in annoyance)... fortunately, for AoD, it was a rental, so no big loss - but so were the CD ones, since I haven't yet scraped up the spare change to buy yet...
Anyway, since those were my "intro" to Lara and her world, I figured I'd try tracking down the other games, to get a taste of how it all began. No luck for a while, until I nabbed a secondhand PS1 version of the first TR game at a fleamarket. (The "Greatest Hits" rerelease, with the TR2 demo.)
Looking forward to this disc full of pistol-packing, temple-exploring nostalgia, I popped it into my PS2 and fired it up.I was rather nonplussed. Maybe I've just been spoiled by the smooth flow and reactive controls of the later games, but the first Tomb Raider seemed...
Clunky. Slow. Like Lara moved, as Yahtzee Croshaw said, "like a cow in a supermarket trolley".
Is it just me that thinks this? Or am I alone in finding the earliest of our favorite girl's franchise rather bricklike? As popular as it was, selling the millions that it did, it must have done something right... but why does it seem so awkward to do things? Even toggling switches and picking up medkits seem to take pin-point alignments to work... was it really this bad back in '96? Or, like I said, am I just spoiled by Crystal Dynamics' fluidly-paced works?
I think the tank-like controls were acceptable for 1996 but should have become a thing of the past way quicker than it had actually did.
Real Life Raider
30-04-08, 00:19
Is it just me that thinks this??
Sorry mate but yes.
When this game first came out it was astounding.
The levels were massive, the puzzles astonishing, the movement incredible.
That was then, just over 10 years ago!
I see your point. Compare TR1 Tomb of Qualopec with the TRA version and you are bound to look askance!
But in all seriousness...don't diss the original. It was a moment in history.
It was the best Tomb Raider imo
Maybe you got this impression because you played the current gen games first, then the old ones
But I love this game, and again, in my opinion, it's way better than anniversary
:)
I think the tank-like controls were acceptable for 1996 but should have become a thing of the past way quicker than it had actually did.
Agreed. Now, I'm basing my opinion not purely in comparison to PS2 games, but to PS1 games as well. I owned a PS1 for ages before ever getting my PS2, and even by comparison to other games of the era, Lara moved - with regard to turning and such; jumps were okay - with aching slowness.
I'm not dissing the original by any real means, don't get me wrong - it was indeed a revolution in gaming for the time... but even the most dedicated Lara lover has gotta admit, handling-wise, the original's really feeling its age by now.
If you want to try further and not just quit you first need to accept the fact that you aren't just going to be able to throw yourself into things at first; you NEED to take a little time to learn how the system comes together to allow you to move smoothly (namely, the grid system and how Lara's movements interact with it, along with compensating for the small delay when you jump). On the other hand, the original system offers certain advantages over the new one once you learn how it comes together, namely near-%100 consistency in your movements, although TR1 has a quirk in that regard that was fixed in the later games (the jumping delay is slightly random, while it is always the same in the later games).
Out of curiousity, are you on PAL or NTSC? I'd recommend looking for the PC version or something if you are playing on PAL, as that version feels FAR slower than the NTSC (note that that only applies to TR1, as they fixed the speed of the later games).
And if you need some sort of "proof" of how the system can used smoothly when learned, here's one of videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdeQOckRyd8&feature=PlayList&p=CE89C3D5233F28B8&index=0 (while this is a speedrun and above my normal play in smoothness, it's still pretty close to how I can do normally).
If you want to try further and not just quit you first need to accept the fact that you aren't just going to be able to throw yourself into things at first; you NEED to take a little time to learn how the system comes together to allow you to move smoothly (namely, the grid system and how Lara's movements interact with it, along with compensating for the small delay when you jump). On the other hand, the original system offers certain advantages over the new one once you learn how it comes together, namely near-%100 consistency in your movements, although TR1 has a quirk in that regard that was fixed in the later games (the jumping delay is slightly random, while it is always the same in the later games).
Out of curiousity, are you on PAL or NTSC? I'd recommend looking for the PC version or something if you are playing on PAL, as that version feels FAR slower than the NTSC (note that that only applies to TR1, as they fixed the speed of the later games).
I guess I was being a little impatient. ...then again, it did take me about ten minutes to get through that gym area of her house, since missing a jump meant a sloow turn around and run back...
Think maybe instead of starting with TR1, I should've tried one of the later games? Do they handle a bit more smoothly?
And I dunno what PAL and NTSC mean, but I'm in the USA, if that helps...
Real Life Raider
30-04-08, 00:44
the original's really feeling its age by now.
Oh absolutely! But the game is now almost sacrosanct in terms of it's importance.
Yes, the textures are poor, the levels are, by our present day standards, unchallenging.
But, it's there and it's still wonderful!
It was the best Tomb Raider imo
Maybe you got this impression because you played the current gen games first, then the old ones
But I love this game, and again, in my opinion, it's way better than anniversary
:)
Maybe you got this impression because you played the old games first, then the current gen ones. ;)
TR1 is my favorite one too but tastes are really subjective and nostalgia is very powerful. Still I know I didn't love TR for the controls (not that I hated them either).
ChaosWolf : You simply have to see Lara as a clockwork robot if you will. Every move as a specific timing like MMAN pointed out. The "irresponsiveness" is due to the need for an animation to end (most of the times) before the next one can begin.
Maybe you got this impression because you played the old games first, then the current gen ones. ;)
TR1 is my favorite one too but tastes are really subjective and nostalgia is very powerful. Still I know I didn't love TR for the controls (not that I hated them either).
ChaosWolf : You simply have to see Lara as a clockwork robot if you will. Every move as a specific timing like MMAN pointed out. The "irresponsiveness" is due to the need for an animation to end (most of the times) before the next one can begin.
"Nostalgia is the magical ability that allows you to remember only the stuff you loved about all the crap you hated years ago." - Anonymous
A clockwork robot, eh? That would explain why she had the grace of a toaster flung down a staircase. (I kid, I kid.)
TR1 was, in its day, groundbreaking. I think it's easier for those who started off with the classic Tomb Raiders and then moved onto the Next Gen ones to appreciate the oldies than those who have played the new ones and went back to see what all the fuss was about. Lara debuted not long after the birth of 3D adventure games, and her agility was seen as remarkable, even if today TR1's Lara is considered 'tank-like'.
since missing a jump meant a sloow turn around and run back...
You should be using the roll; except in tight, dangerous areas you only ever need to turn in quarters, as the roll covers anything bigger than that.
If you are new I wouldn't recommend the later games for now, as while there are a few control tweaks as the series goes along, most don't really matter in "normal" play, and they are quite a bit harder (although TR2 could be fine, as save anywhere balances the harder difficulty somewhat).
If you are in the USA you should be using the NTSC version, so you are okay (BTW, since you are on the PS2 did you turn on texture smoothing? The visual improvement is immense as it removes the pixellation).
"Nostalgia is the magical ability that allows you to remember only the stuff you loved about all the crap you hated years ago." - Anonymous
That quote sucks as it somehow implies that people didn't love something to have nostalgia for it, which is BS. Nostalgia has had its extent and meaning totally destroyed in gaming lately. It's not even possible to have nostalgia without liking something, as that contradicts its whole meaning.
Real Life Raider
30-04-08, 00:56
"Nostalgia is the magical ability that allows you to remember only the stuff you loved about all the crap you hated years ago." - Anonymous
TR1 wasn't, isn't and never will be crap.
The only thing that seeing the early games has really helped me understand about the series, is why Lara quickly became so "infamous" for her, shall we say, bountiful figure, in spite of the primitive graphics of the original PlayStation - the polygon counts of the original engine limited them in what could go onscreen, so they had to exaggerate her feminine features to make the fact she was, well, a "she", noticeable without too much engine-stress.
Thus, we have PS1's famous Lara "Torpedo Tits" Croft leaping across the screen.
Boy, I am SO glad Crystal D dropped that aspect of her CORE-made look... it was getting ridiculous around the AoD era...
The only thing that seeing the early games has really helped me understand about the series, is why Lara quickly became so "infamous" for her, shall we say, bountiful figure, in spite of the primitive graphics of the original PlayStation - the polygon counts of the original engine limited them in what could go onscreen, so they had to exaggerate her feminine features to make the fact she was, well, a "she", noticeable without too much engine-stress.
Thus, we have PS1's famous Lara "Torpedo Tits" Croft leaping across the screen.
Boy, I am SO glad Crystal D dropped that aspect of her CORE-made look... it was getting ridiculous around the AoD era...
Really? I always thought Legend Lara looked a bit more...stacked than AOD Lara. But then the clothing in Legend allowed for alot more cleavage. TR4-TR5 Lara was completely rediculous. She had no waist and gargantuan boobs! It was like, 'oh you poor woman, have to carry those around with you all the time.' It's a wonder she didn't have a pair of black eyes by the end of KV5!
Real Life Raider
30-04-08, 01:23
they had to exaggerate her feminine features to make the fact she was, well, a "she", noticeable without too much engine-stress.
...
Now you're just being silly!
Now you're just being silly!
That's what I've always been told was the reason. It was the later games that took it and ran with it, getting it, so to speak, out of hand.
Everything in the old games had to be bigger than normal because of the primitive graphics, and yes all 5 first games had the same tank like controls, then AOD had tank in quicksand like controls which made it worse rather than better. Tomb Raider 1 was revolutionary in its day, but the controls should have been improved with Tomb Raider 2, rather than playing 6 games before the 7th finally came out with decent controls. The PS1 version of Tomb Raider 1 looks no where near as good as the PC version played with glidos or dgVoodoo. ;)
Everything in the old games had to be bigger than normal because of the primitive graphics, and yes all 5 first games had the same tank like controls, then AOD had tank in quicksand like controls which made it worse rather than better. Tomb Raider 1 was revolutionary in its day, but the controls should have been improved with Tomb Raider 2, rather than playing 6 games before the 7th finally came out with decent controls. The PS1 version of Tomb Raider 1 looks no where near as good as the PC version played with glidos or dgVoodoo. ;)
Thank you for that. Guess I ought to just leave the PS1 games where they lay, then, and stick to the newer titles, if, as you seem to be implying, the storyline was executed better than the gameplay was.
Eddie Haskell
30-04-08, 02:34
Thank you for that. Guess I ought to just leave the PS1 games where they lay, then, and stick to the newer titles, if, as you seem to be implying, the storyline was executed better than the gameplay was.
Wrong and double wrong. Sometimes aussie500 writes as though she is the end-all of TR logic or something, but in the end it's only her opinion, as this is mine. I mastered every games control systems from the original to Anniversary, and I can speed run through the all of the games at warp 8 if I wanted to. The only reason that the newer, CD games are more fluid looking and in effect is because the engine does all the fine tuning for you. One simply points Lara generally where one wants to jump and she does quite accurately hit the target. It is very hard to miss. In the original one learns accuracy, and to me that was what Tomb Raider (a game about movement in tough environments) should be about.
The game play is masterful in the original, with true precision controls and if you failed it was because you screwed up, not the camera or something else that was out of your control.
Dissing the original as an inferior, flawed product, even in a non-confrontational way is pathetic. Not pointing any fingers at anyone here, simply a reminder that in 1996 this game was revolutionary in many ways. And aussie500's jab about the controls not "improving" is ridiculous. They were fantastic controls, and I should know having played many hundreds of pc games over the course of my life. They were precise, simple and efficient.
So to conclude, it's just you in my opinion. :)
You'll find that, yes, in these parts, it's just you. But in the scheme of things, no, it's not. Even as the first game garnered a lot of respect in the gaming world and demonstrated huge advancements, there's always been complaints similar to yours.
Personally, although I enjoyed the first game, it's certainly not my favorite. I'd say amongst all of them, it ranks about the middle. But like you, it wasn't the first one I played. The first I actually played was on GBC, and ironically, there were moves on that that still haven't been incorporated into the "real" TR control scheme (namely her ability to shoot whilst hanging on a ledge/ladder). And then my "real" TR game was TRII, which made a good bit of improvements on the first, graphically and mechanically. So I wasn't terribly impressed by the original.
It is necessary to take into account, though, the decade that has past since the release of Tomb Raider. Even though I'd cite TRII as my favorite, I still have a hard time "reverting" back to the "clunky" controls of old after playing the fast-paced and fluid Legend and Anniversary.
Thank you for that. Guess I ought to just leave the PS1 games where they lay, then, and stick to the newer titles, if, as you seem to be implying, the storyline was executed better than the gameplay was.
Gameplay was fantastic, level design always made best use of the resources available, puzzles were often challenging especially in TR4 and 5. All games are in my opinion worth playing, but no the graphics are a bit dated now and the controls even back then were not brilliant compared to other games released at the same time. Unfortunately the minor improvements made with each successive classic game were not really enough to keep Tomb Raider on top, but most of us liked the first and did not mind playing new adventures on what was basically the same 1996 engine.
Tomb Raider 1 is really the only PS1 game that time was not kind to, the others compare fairly well with the PC version, but it was quite a shock back in 2006 when l went to replay it after 5 years and discovered it looked so bad, my memory had been playing tricks on me. ;) l replayed Tomb Raider 2 on the PS1 and Tomb Raider 1 with the extra gold levels on the PC for the first time. l still prefer playing the games on the playstation, but will be sticking with the PC for Tomb Raider 1.
What is this stuff about how the control scheme should have been "updated" after the first game? The N64 had better schemes, yes, but that was an analogue system. The scheme of the original Tomb Raider games is still one of the best non-analogue 3D control methods I've seen; I consider the fact that it still has advantages over many contempory control schemes (as opposed to being surpassed in every way like 99% of them have) to be proof of that.
It could have tried something else around TR 4-5 where newer consoles had made analogue standard, but that's the least of the problems by that point.
the storyline was executed better than the gameplay was.
1 and 4 are the only ones with a decent story. Exploration is what the original series does best.
What is this stuff about how the control scheme should have been "updated" after the first game? The N64 had better schemes, yes, but that was an analogue system. The scheme of the original Tomb Raider games is still one of the best non-analogue 3D control methods I've seen; I consider the fact that it still has advantages over many contempory control schemes (as opposed to being surpassed in every way like 99% of them have) to be proof of that.
The fact it was on a grid didn't help things. It's a limiting system to begin with. There were other games at the time with better controls. Take the parts where you control the kids in NiGHTS as an example. Or Burning Rangers. Etc.
Also the N64 wasn't an analogue system in itself. Games were made that way. Again NiGHTS is a good example of how 3d controls could be done in a different way.
But more than being in a "square" world, what limited TR were actually the animations. They could have developed mid-animations to smoothen some movements. It was ok for 1996 but in subsequent years it began to see fierce competition and became a limitation.
Which doesn't mean I don't love the game, but from a technical standpoint the movement is far from being the best you could see 96-00
Which doesn't mean I don't love the game, but from a technical standpoint the movement is far from being the best you could see 96-00
If only they change the technical side only :rolleyes:
The fact it was on a grid didn't help things. It's a limiting system to begin with. There were other games at the time with better controls. Take the parts where you control the kids in NiGHTS as an example. Or Burning Rangers. Etc.
Didn't NiGHTS use some sort of custom analogue control scheme? Plus, as far as I know, those aren't games with lots of platforming.
Also the N64 wasn't an analogue system in itself. Games were made that way.
But having built-in analogue was one of the main draws to the N64; games that didn't use it (I don't think I can even think of any outside of 2D games) were rightfully derided for not exploiting a superior method that was available. The Playstation didn't have that, as it only had a digital pad to start with, and, when the dual shock was released, most games supported it as a complete afterthought and made it almost completely unusable compared to the digital control (Tomb Raider being no exception to that). Although I heard a few late PS games did make good use of it.
sandra croft
30-04-08, 12:57
I can understand if the controlls and graphic is a disappointment, but how about the leveldesign, which is much better than TRA. Have you played the whole game otherwise I suggest you do before you give up on it. TR1 is probably the best game in the world. TRA could have been the best game in the world if it had been a real remake but since it´s not it doesn´t come close to the original.
Didn't NiGHTS use some sort of custom analogue control scheme? Plus, as far as I know, those aren't games with lots of platforming.
NiGHTS was a game that pushed the sales of a Analog 3d Saturn controller sold separately but quite frankly I never got a chance to use it. Controllers in themselves aren't the problem. The games simply have to be built in order to accommodate more transitional animations and animation cancels. That's what makes for the "smoothness". The only thing a controller can affect is that "progressive walking" effect in you see in current games (TRA an example). If you gently nudge the controller in any given direction the character can walk slowly and depending on how harder you press the faster it can go. This is being truly analogue. Digital (old controllers and every d-pad) can only give you a YES or NO input. You are either doing an action or not doing anything at all. No sense of progressiveness.
Burning Rangers had a fair bit of platforming involved. But that isn't the point; when animation and chunkiness is out of the way the difference between this game and TR is something easily programmable which is wall detection. Platforming from a programming standpoint is relatively easy to do.
But having built-in analogue was one of the main draws to the N64; games that didn't use it (I don't think I can even think of any outside of 2D games) were rightfully derided for not exploiting a superior method that was available. The Playstation didn't have that, as it only had a digital pad to start with, and, when the dual shock was released, most games supported it as a complete afterthought and made it almost completely unusable compared to the digital control (Tomb Raider being no exception to that). Although I heard a few late PS games did make good use of it.
You need only to play games from back then and games from today to see that you still use WASD to control your character. The difference is all in the software.
Eddie Haskell
30-04-08, 13:15
The fact it was on a grid didn't help things. It's a limiting system to begin with. There were other games at the time with better controls. Take the parts where you control the kids in NiGHTS as an example. Or Burning Rangers. Etc.
Also the N64 wasn't an analogue system in itself. Games were made that way. Again NiGHTS is a good example of how 3d controls could be done in a different way.
But more than being in a "square" world, what limited TR were actually the animations. They could have developed mid-animations to smoothen some movements. It was ok for 1996 but in subsequent years it began to see fierce competition and became a limitation.
Which doesn't mean I don't love the game, but from a technical standpoint the movement is far from being the best you could see 96-00
The reason that I like the controls in this game is because your movement within this world can be learned and completely mastered. In the CD games, the animations take precedent over your input. The "look" of the move is the king, not your exact wishes. I don't claim (or want) to be an expert in the intricacies of the technical aspects of the coding, etc. All I know is that when one positioned Lara correctly in the original world, Lara responded correctly.
We are not physically there. So we need environmental information that is reliable and exacting. The grid gave that to us. In the real world one goes through childhood learning to gauge distances, to figure out ones speed and angle necessary to hit a jump exactly. We don't have that luxury with our avatar. So we need information that we can count on. The grid gave that to us. Now we have exceedingly soft controls that are so forgiving that failure is actually difficult to accomplish. No precision at all, and no real sense that you are performing these moves, just activating animations.
The reason that I like the controls in this game is because your movement within this world can be learned and completely mastered. In the CD games, the animations take precedent over your input. The "look" of the move is the king, not your exact wishes. I don't claim (or want) to be an expert in the intricacies of the technical aspects of the coding, etc. All I know is that when one positioned Lara correctly in the original world, Lara responded correctly.
We are not physically there. So we need environmental information that is reliable and exacting. The grid gave that to us. In the real world one goes through childhood learning to gauge distances, to figure out ones speed and angle necessary to hit a jump exactly. We don't have that luxury with our avatar. So we need information that we can count on. The grid gave that to us. Now we have exceedingly soft controls that are so forgiving that failure is actually difficult to accomplish. No precision at all, and no real sense that you are performing these moves, just activating animations.
I won't compare TR1's controls with TRA's controls since that is whole other can of worms. However, while a perfectly mechanical world has it's benefits, TR is not the only game were you can become better by learning it's intricacies and I don't think that is relatable to the system but rather to how much time you've played the game in question. Not-so-clockwork systems can still be predictable in a sense and all have their reaction times.
Or, like I said, am I just spoiled by Crystal Dynamics' fluidly-paced works?
Yup...I think that you are at a disadvantage. If you would have played them from the beginning, you would understand us oldies better. At the time, this was cutting edge stuff! THink about Star Wars...I still think that 4 5 and 6 are better than 1 2 and 3 even though the newer ones have mush better effects.
I guess it's an eye of the beholder thing...
Eddie Haskell
30-04-08, 14:06
I won't compare TR1's controls with TRA's controls since that is whole other can of worms. However, while a perfectly mechanical world has it's benefits, TR is not the only game were you can become better by learning it's intricacies and I don't think that is relatable to the system but rather to how much time you've played the game in question. Not-so-clockwork systems can still be predictable in a sense and all have their reaction times.
Never said it was the only game that one can truly become its master. Just comparing the TR series. That can of worms has been long open anyway. And I disagree with your supposition pertaining to ones mastering any game. Here's why.
What really is part and parcel to truly mastering a game? To a game like Legend or a game like the original, it's like comparing apples and oranges. For the former one you simply, generally and haphazardly point the avatar the right way, and the latter one must be far more precise in these actions. Is this required precision detrimental to the game in any way? Not at all, it translates to a more complete, fulfilling and connected experience with the avatar. I like to think of my being Lara in Legend as one where I am stoned or drunk and with limited input to my senses. Although I accomplish my goal in the end, I did not feel the bumps or remember how I did it. It just happened.
Tomb Raider I disappointing? WTF??? :confused:
Eddie Haskell
30-04-08, 23:49
Tomb Raider I disappointing? WTF??? :confused:
It does create one heck of an oxymoron, doesn't it?
Legend 4ever
02-05-08, 07:52
Okay, I've played the Crystal Dynamics games, and A.o.D. (up until the glitches made me stop in annoyance)... fortunately, for AoD, it was a rental, so no big loss - but so were the CD ones, since I haven't yet scraped up the spare change to buy yet...
Anyway, since those were my "intro" to Lara and her world, I figured I'd try tracking down the other games, to get a taste of how it all began. No luck for a while, until I nabbed a secondhand PS1 version of the first TR game at a fleamarket. (The "Greatest Hits" rerelease, with the TR2 demo.)
Looking forward to this disc full of pistol-packing, temple-exploring nostalgia, I popped it into my PS2 and fired it up.I was rather nonplussed. Maybe I've just been spoiled by the smooth flow and reactive controls of the later games, but the first Tomb Raider seemed...
Clunky. Slow. Like Lara moved, as Yahtzee Croshaw said, "like a cow in a supermarket trolley".
Is it just me that thinks this? Or am I alone in finding the earliest of our favorite girl's franchise rather bricklike? As popular as it was, selling the millions that it did, it must have done something right... but why does it seem so awkward to do things? Even toggling switches and picking up medkits seem to take pin-point alignments to work... was it really this bad back in '96? Or, like I said, am I just spoiled by Crystal Dynamics' fluidly-paced works?
Umm. IMO your not. I mean YES and NO. Because, um...ugh it is confusing. To me it was dull even after TR2 and TR4, since I played TR1 after those games.
it's definitely just you. tr1/tr2 has a great storyline and engine looks realistic even now
I think the only level in the entre game which is let down slighly by the dated graphics engine, imo, is the last Peruvian level. The colours on the walls, the stone-work, traps, etc- just add to the dated feeling of the game.
Other than that, the game was near revolutionary for its time :tmb:
Nuff said ;)
Eddie Haskell
02-05-08, 15:02
I think the only level in the entre game which is let down slighly by the dated graphics engine, imo, is the last Peruvian level. The colours on the walls, the stone-work, traps, etc- just add to the dated feeling of the game.
Other than that, the game was near revolutionary for its time :tmb:
Nuff said ;)
it's definitely just you. tr1/tr2 has a great storyline and engine looks realistic even now
I can see how any newer or younger gamer may dismiss or not see the beauty, depth and wonder that is the original game. It is their loss however, much the same as one who dismisses any old black and white film as "old fashioned".
Capt. Murphy
02-05-08, 15:17
...it did take me about ten minutes to get through that gym area of her house, since missing a jump meant a sloow turn around and run back...
:confused:
You can Roll or hit back and a diagonal (sort of a half way turn) then press forward and the other diagonal direction.
If you think that's hard... you should try screwing in a lightbulb. :rolleyes:
:vlol: j/k I couldn't believe you had that much trouble with it. :o I guess the games of today have people spoiled. :mis:
Never said it was the only game that one can truly become its master. Just comparing the TR series. That can of worms has been long open anyway. And I disagree with your supposition pertaining to ones mastering any game. Here's why.
What really is part and parcel to truly mastering a game? To a game like Legend or a game like the original, it's like comparing apples and oranges. For the former one you simply, generally and haphazardly point the avatar the right way, and the latter one must be far more precise in these actions. Is this required precision detrimental to the game in any way? Not at all, it translates to a more complete, fulfilling and connected experience with the avatar. I like to think of my being Lara in Legend as one where I am stoned or drunk and with limited input to my senses. Although I accomplish my goal in the end, I did not feel the bumps or remember how I did it. It just happened.
I'm not saying Legend is more difficult than any of the other TR games, I'm saying it can also be mastered. It might be easy to complete the game but I assure you that doing it in a timely fashion can produce some very interesting competition. Two persons of different skill (well, yeah, it's subjective) can both complete Legend, but one of them can speedrun (which means learning the finer points of the engine) in half (or less) the time.
I can see how any newer or younger gamer may dismiss or not see the beauty, depth and wonder that is the original game. It is their loss however, much the same as one who dismisses any old black and white film as "old fashioned".
To use that comparison, I can tell you that it has everything to do with experience. I don't know what "old fashioned" is, but I can tell you I can use the fingers of only one of my hands to count the number of black and white movies I actually enjoyed. It has nothing to do with the technology in itself (one of my favorite movies of all time is black and white half the time - Memento;I have no problem with black and white) but how theatrical the acting was back then.
To this day I'm still obsessed with a 1995 game (Panzer Dragoon) that every kid today would probably say it sucks . I can't blame them, after experiencing the smoothness and the refinement of the gameplay mechanics of today (art, style and atmosphere as well as music is another mater entirely, though :p).
Like I always say, it's a matter of context. How good it looked, and how well it played are things even I wouldn't understand if I hadn't played TR1 back in 1996. Quality is relative; it depends on your experience. As for "it's their loss", people older than you can always throw you the same line. Or people who saw 3 pictures in their whole life and thought Titanic was the best movie they ever watched.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I can't blame the topic starter.
Eddie Haskell
02-05-08, 16:49
To use that comparison, I can tell you that it has everything to do with experience. I don't know what "old fashioned" is, but I can tell you I can use the fingers of only one of my hands to count the number of black and white movies I actually enjoyed. It has nothing to do with the technology in itself (one of my favorite movies of all time is black and white half the time - Memento;I have no problem with black and white) but how theatrical the acting was back then.
To this day I'm still obsessed with a 1995 game (Panzer Dragoon) that every kid today would probably say it sucks . I can't blame them, after experiencing the smoothness and the refinement of the gameplay mechanics of today (art, style and atmosphere as well as music is another mater entirely, though :p).
Like I always say, it's a matter of context. How good it looked, and how well it played are things even I wouldn't understand if I hadn't played TR1 back in 1996. Quality is relative; it depends on your experience. As for "it's their loss", people older than you can always throw you the same line. Or people who saw 3 pictures in their whole life and thought Titanic was the best movie they ever watched.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I can't blame the topic starter.
Nor do I, as I stated.
The black and white movie comparison is not really an accurate or true metaphor (my bad). The original and Legend are both 3D, 3rd person games, with the difference really in the refined technology and a major upgrade in the "pixel and polygon" arena. They are alike more than one might initially imagine, however they are miles apart in the technology area.
To ask a kid of today who started gaming a few years ago to play and really appreciate the original is asking a lot of that person. They must be able to surmount an initial, normal reaction of "this game looks like crap" and "the controls are weird", and play it long enough to get the hang of the "old school" controls and lose the real vision (look) of the game and see it as "we do". By "we do" I mean the game as it is remanufactured in our brains (imagination, and filling in the blanks) to produce a substantial, realistic world. If they can get by the initial stumbling blocks, they will discover an incredible game, and than gain some perspective on the evolution (good or bad) of the series. I hope that many can and do.
1) The game is nearly 12 years old.
2) Once you get to know the controls and Lara's moveset, she becomes more agile that you could ever imagine. I can make classic Lara do whatever I want, whenever I want, without a backwards glance, with complete and utter faith in the control system / game engine, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for Legend / Anniversary...
It's a matter to learning the 180 roll, knowing her limitations, how she jumps etc - if you can judge distance and count steps as she runs, you never need stop ;)
I'm not saying Legend is more difficult than any of the other TR games, I'm saying it can also be mastered. It might be easy to complete the game but I assure you that doing it in a timely fashion can produce some very interesting competition. Two persons of different skill (well, yeah, it's subjective) can both complete Legend, but one of them can speedrun (which means learning the finer points of the engine) in half (or less) the time.
The amount of mastery needed is nowhere near the same; I've been playing the original games for over ten years (and could use the basics just fine for almost as long) and still find new things I can do with what you are given to experiment or optimize my play. In Legend I could "master" all the finer points of the engine very quickly for speedrunning.
Eddie Haskell
02-05-08, 17:56
The amount of mastery needed is nowhere near the same; I've been playing the original games for over ten years (and could use the basics just fine for almost as long) and still find new things I can do with what you are given to experiment or optimize my play. In Legend I could "master" all the finer points of the engine very quickly for speedrunning.
Are there any "finer" points to the Legend engine? The scripting seems to eliminate much (if not all) experimentation.
The amount of mastery needed is nowhere near the same; I've been playing the original games for over ten years (and could use the basics just fine for almost as long) and still find new things I can do with what you are given to experiment or optimize my play. In Legend I could "master" all the finer points of the engine very quickly for speedrunning.
I'm not saying the older games are more difficult when it comes to speed runs but then again I also know from experience how "getting" the grid system is at the core of it. Legend is more about the feel of it.
Eddie : The timing of jumps is a good example. Holding and tapping jump will provide different outcomes that depending on your situation can be beneficial or harmful.
There is one very important thing one must take into consideration : some of the shortcuts that can be used in TR1 weren't meant to be executed or taken by the developers. It's about exploiting the flaws of the engine.
As a 2005 game, Legend is a lot more bug-controlled and speed-runs can't have to be completed pretty much in the way there were intended. So you need dexterity and actual speed rather than knowledge of what flaws to exploit.
Aphrodite22
02-05-08, 22:11
Tomb Raider seemed...
Clunky. Slow. Like Lara moved, as Yahtzee Croshaw said, "like a cow in a supermarket trolley".
Is it just me that thinks this? Or am I alone in finding the earliest of our favorite girl's franchise rather bricklike? As popular as it was, selling the millions that it did, it must have done something right... but why does it seem so awkward to do things? Even toggling switches and picking up medkits seem to take pin-point alignments to work... was it really this bad back in '96? Or, like I said, am I just spoiled by Crystal Dynamics' fluidly-paced works?
if u have only played AOD , Legend and anniversary and u start playing the old games u will think like that.
My first tomb raider game was The Lost Artifact and i thought it was a great game for me, but then i played legend and anniversary and i was like WOW look at the graphics and the movements and then i played TRLA again and i thought it was a bad game compared to those..
and how they say, it was more than 10 years ago
Sorry I find it perfectly fine. Sure sometimes the controls are a bit slow, but the wonderful game makes up for it. I've played PS3 games, via my friend, and I still find this as one of my favorite games.
Sorry to say this, but, it's just you.
There is one very important thing one must take into consideration : some of the shortcuts that can be used in TR1 weren't meant to be executed or taken by the developers. It's about exploiting the flaws of the engine.
That part is true, with emphasis on "some", in terms of things like cornerbugs and subtle things like flare cancels (which is an example of a random movement glitch adding a lot of depth).
As a 2005 game, Legend is a lot more bug-controlled and speed-runs can't have to be completed pretty much in the way there were intended. So you need dexterity and actual speed rather than knowledge of what flaws to exploit.
This isn't at all though, even in a no-glitch run almost every room in the original games is like a puzzle where you have to plan out of the perfect route with the many options you are given, and there's every chance it will need a revision later, especially when you add in all the non-linearity that complicates things further. In contrast, many areas in Legend/AE are just a case of running through with the fastest movement technique, with little in the way of planning (although there are exceptions, like St Francis' Folly). That's without going into the fact that both Legend and AE do have big glitches and oversights (just far more "set" than the original games, where even small discoveries can lead to using completely different methods).
Hopefully TRU will end up like the originals inadvertedly (admittably) did, since it's based around "Lara can do anything you'd think she can do", along with apparently having much more non-linear design, there will hopefully be so many options that working out the very best for a given area will be a big challenge.
i see what you mean, but u just need to get used to it. the controls are Very weird at first, but give yourself time to get used to them and you'll find them very fluid and smooth. much more than the newer games, which i find to be spastic and snappy.
the slower movement has a realistic quality and "weight" to it which i find to be a delight.
for what it lacks in graphics, it makes up in gameplay. which will always have the upperhand in game design.
also, keep an open mind. you could complain of its bad graphics, awkward controls, and emptyness. but once you look past that and learn how to control her, you'll find the game rich with atmosphere and enjoy it.
:)
Honestly I got to a point where I can quite literally run Lara from beginning to end of the game without miss-stepping or dying. The reason is because I have played through TR1 more times than I can remember now.
After leaving it alone for a few years, getting used to Legend and Anniversary, and trying TR1 again... well its not quite as easy as it was back then. The grid system felt just right at the time.
So I can see where this person can get the impression that TR1 is sloppy. In comparison it is.
Okay, I've played the Crystal Dynamics games, and A.o.D. (up until the glitches made me stop in annoyance)... fortunately, for AoD, it was a rental, so no big loss - but so were the CD ones, since I haven't yet scraped up the spare change to buy yet...
Anyway, since those were my "intro" to Lara and her world, I figured I'd try tracking down the other games, to get a taste of how it all began. No luck for a while, until I nabbed a secondhand PS1 version of the first TR game at a fleamarket. (The "Greatest Hits" rerelease, with the TR2 demo.)
Looking forward to this disc full of pistol-packing, temple-exploring nostalgia, I popped it into my PS2 and fired it up.I was rather nonplussed. Maybe I've just been spoiled by the smooth flow and reactive controls of the later games, but the first Tomb Raider seemed...
Clunky. Slow. Like Lara moved, as Yahtzee Croshaw said, "like a cow in a supermarket trolley".
Is it just me that thinks this? Or am I alone in finding the earliest of our favorite girl's franchise rather bricklike? As popular as it was, selling the millions that it did, it must have done something right... but why does it seem so awkward to do things? Even toggling switches and picking up medkits seem to take pin-point alignments to work... was it really this bad back in '96? Or, like I said, am I just spoiled by Crystal Dynamics' fluidly-paced works?
Well first of all why are you feeling nostalgic for a game you never played? Nostalgia is a dangerous thing sometimes that creates false memories, and this seems to be what happened in your case. If you start out playing Legend and Anniversary of course you're going to be used to the up-to-date controls, and yeah maybe TR is a bit clunky but as you've stated, I think you're just spoiled by Crystal Dynamics' "fluidly-paced works" which are clunkier than some of the Edios games anyways. When you hold your expectations too high, the fall tends to be harder. Plus, the earlier games were so much more hands on, and some of her earliest moves like the roll definitely need to come back; I think CD has taken a wrong turn in some of the new moves for Lara. But as I said, don't hold your expectations too high, or you won't have any fun at all. :)
!Lara Croft!
03-05-08, 01:20
You're in luck, im currently making a TR1 1.1 Remake, its exactly like tr1 with...
1) Updated/more detailed textures.
2) One or two new area's eg. outside the caves.
3) New lara object (New and faster anims)
4) New and more detailed objects.
5) ITS PLAYABLE, no offence to the origional TR1.
In order to make it easy, each area is a seperate game, Peru, Greese, Egypt, Atlantis (TR1), Atlantis (UB), Egypt (UB), and ofcourse a croft manor in each one.
NOTE: THIS IS A TRIAL SO IT IS NOT A STABLE OPERATION, IT MAY GET CANCELLED.
5) ITS PLAYABLE, no offence to the origional TR1.
I'm assuming you're making it in the TRLE, TR4, which it's based off, is barely any different to TR1 in terms of engine (beyond the subtle tweaks I mentioned earlier), so instantly declaring yours better doesn't make much sense. Unless, of course, you are doing it in some different engine.
!Lara Croft!
03-05-08, 03:05
When i said its playable, i was refering to the controls of tr1, I was playing it 5 minutes before i decided to remake it, I am doing 2 remakes of the same game, one is exactly the same but with updated textures and lara, the other is a remake based on the origional map and feel that everyone got when they played tr1 for the first time back in 1996 with new area's, lara, enimeys, objects, textures and shapes.:) And i never said that mine was better, nobody can top tr1, im just translating it to the tr4 engine because, i dont know if its just me, on the new computers, tr1 has bugs, no sound and a non-receptive lara.
That part is true, with emphasis on "some", in terms of things like cornerbugs and subtle things like flare cancels (which is an example of a random movement glitch adding a lot of depth).
This isn't at all though, even in a no-glitch run almost every room in the original games is like a puzzle where you have to plan out of the perfect route with the many options you are given, and there's every chance it will need a revision later, especially when you add in all the non-linearity that complicates things further. In contrast, many areas in Legend/AE are just a case of running through with the fastest movement technique, with little in the way of planning.
That was what I meant by dexterity and speed. Making sure you are running in straight lines whenever you can etc.
That was what I meant by dexterity and speed. Making sure you are running in straight lines whenever you can etc.
There isn't really though; even if you are slightly off you'll only lose about two seconds at the most, in comparison to the originals where you can have a route that seems perfectly solid yet is over five seconds slower than the actual "perfect" route, with no use of shortcuts at all, and just clever combinations of moves or small tweaks.
There isn't really though; even if you are slightly off you'll only lose about two seconds at the most, in comparison to the originals where you can have a route that seems perfectly solid yet is over five seconds slower than the actual "perfect" route, with no use of shortcuts at all, and just clever combinations of moves or small tweaks.
That's because we are used to measuring all of Lara's moves time and space using the "grid system" table. You can't measure most of today's games much in the same way. Simply because you don't have squares anymore to know exactly how you are progressing. But each animation does have a timing of it's own and it's own cancels.
In Legend if you have to get from point A to point B there is also only one "perfect" route.
Eddie Haskell
03-05-08, 15:11
That's because we are used to measuring all of Lara's moves time and space using the "grid system" table. You can't measure most of today's games much in the same way. Simply because you don't have squares anymore to know exactly how you are progressing. But each animation does have a timing of it's own and it's own cancels.
In Legend if you have to get from point A to point B there is also only one "perfect" route.
"Perfect", is measured in feet, not inches in this CD world. And as this movement relates to the controls one can most times be within double digit degrees off, and yet still hit that jump and land appropriately. They have a long way to go to to make the game as accurate and skillful as the original. If it is even possible with all the scripting.
"Perfect", is measured in feet, not inches in this CD world. And as this movement relates to the controls one can most times be within double digit degrees off, and yet still hit that jump and land appropriately. They have a long way to go to to make the game as accurate and skillful as the original. If it is even possible with all the scripting.
I think you are missing the point. Doing something "accurate" and "skillful" as you say, in programming (something I do pretty much every day of the week due to my major) is easier than to implement a system such as the one seen in Legend. Being more "user friendly" like Legend is, involves a lot more code and work for whoever is implementing. So this is pretty much a design choice and not a flaw, bug or incompetence.
As for how Perfect is measured in the CD world it's also measured in inches indirectly since the running animation (or any given animation) does have an exact timing and length to it. Each animation has a certain number of frames attached to it and a crossed span. There are however, some animations, which are canceled halfway through in order to adapt Lara to her environment.
As an example, when you jump in TRA you do move a fixed number of inches each time, however, if you are jumping towards something grab-able the computer will "recognize the object" and queue the jump-grab animation instead. This is a crude example but I think you get the picture (not that I think anyone here doesn't have a rough understanding of how it all works). Still there are other variables because there is more than one kind of jump in TRA. At least two : tap JUMP, hold JUMP (I don't think it's analogue in length but I could be wrong).
Eddie Haskell
03-05-08, 18:27
I think you are missing the point. Doing something "accurate" and "skillful" as you say, in programming (something I do pretty much every day of the week due to my major) is easier than to implement a system such as the one seen in Legend. Being more "user friendly" like Legend is, involves a lot more code and work for whoever is implementing. So this is pretty much a design choice and not a flaw, bug or incompetence.
As for how Perfect is measured in the CD world it's also measured in inches indirectly since the running animation (or any given animation) does have an exact timing and length to it. Each animation has a certain number of frames attached to it and a crossed span. There are however, some animations, which are canceled halfway through in order to adapt Lara to her environment.
As an example, when you jump in TRA you do move a fixed number of inches each time, however, if you are jumping towards something grab-able the computer will "recognize the object" and queue the jump-grab animation instead. This is a crude example but I think you get the picture (not that I think anyone here doesn't have a rough understanding of how it all works). Still there are other variables because there is more than one kind of jump in TRA. At least two : tap JUMP, hold JUMP (I don't think it's analogue in length but I could be wrong).
You just described the point I was making. Saying that it takes more or less time, or is more difficult or not to create a "user friendly" game is irrelevant. The nuts and bolts of how it is done is interesting to know, but the end result is all that matters. These new games are not created (as you have just verified) with precision and accuracy as a hallmark.
The ideal Tomb Raider game in my personal opinion would be a movement/simulation. A game in which movement in the created world is the major game component should have at it's core, "precision". Making it "user friendly" defeats and destroys what I consider the heart of the game. What's the point of creating a game that one simply goes through the motions, haphazardly pointing Lara in a general direction knowing that the animation will kick in regardless of any real accuracy? What's the point of creating perilous conditions, long jumps, tall towers, and other assorted dangers if one can basically ignore these hazards as if one was walking in the park? Without real environmental risks and accuracy in ones use of the controls these "dangers" are a charade.
The automatic grab animation that you describe is also a big mistake. What made the older games more of a simulation was that one had to hit a key to activate this animation. While they did add a manual grab element, it was a fatally flawed. The reason being that the game was not designed with it in the first place. Any element that can make the player more skilled, and not rely upon the computer/scripting/coding to do something for them is a big plus.
You just described the point I was making. Saying that it takes more or less time, or is more difficult or not to create a "user friendly" game is irrelevant. The nuts and bolts of how it is done is interesting to know, but the end result is all that matters. These new games are not created (as you have just verified) with precision and accuracy as a hallmark.
The ideal Tomb Raider game in my personal opinion would be a movement/simulation. A game in which movement in the created world is the major game component should have at it's core, "precision". Making it "user friendly" defeats and destroys what I consider the heart of the game. What's the point of creating a game that one simply goes through the motions, haphazardly pointing Lara in a general direction knowing that the animation will kick in regardless of any real accuracy? What's the point of creating perilous conditions, long jumps, tall towers, and other assorted dangers if one can basically ignore these hazards as if one was walking in the park? Without real environmental risks and accuracy in ones use of the controls these "dangers" are a charade.
Well, people think differently. First of all, for me the charm in TR was never precision. I guess that is why I can't bring myself to like a game like TR3.Platforming is only one of the aspects of the series, not the whole thing.
As for dangers being a charade...maybe I'm the only one who had more trouble in the corridor traversals of the Obelisk of Khamoon in TRA than in entirety of TR1. Or maybe you're forgetting about the adrenaline dodge. The point is not making it about knowing how the system works, but making it about the actual execution.
I'm not saying CD's formula is perfect, but at least it has involved more in one game than Core's formula did in 5 iterations. I don't want to play the same game every single time, otherwise there is really no point in developing a sequel.
The old mechanics present no actual challenge. You need only to think things in advance. Maybe CD haven't made use of it that much yet, but the system they created makes for a more interactive experience in the sense that you have to act as action takes place.
In the old games if you needed only to count the squares between you and your destination to know what to do in terms of platforming.
Any element that can make the player more skilled, and not rely upon the computer/scripting/coding to do something for them is a big plus.
Does that include turning the gunfight mechanics into something more shooter like? Because shooting is still aided.
TR1 wasn't, isn't and never will be crap.
I played all TRs (since 1996), but I have fallen in love with Legend and Anniversary. I have to admit that, loving so much Anni, TR is THE masterpiece, is an art, one of the best game ever made. People should stop complaining about the graphics... it's a 1996 game, for God's sake, it's challenging, has a beautiful story (but the Anniversary one is way better, IMO), a superb level design and a lot of original ideas. I doubt that any other TR game will replace the first episode.
Eddie Haskell
03-05-08, 19:39
Well, people think differently. First of all, for me the charm in TR was never precision. I guess that is why I can't bring myself to like a game like TR3.Platforming is only one of the aspects of the series, not the whole thing.
Agreed. As I said, it is my personal opinion and preference.
As for dangers being a charade...maybe I'm the only one who had more trouble in the corridor traversals of the Obelisk of Khamoon in TRA than in entirety of TR1. Or maybe you're forgetting about the adrenaline dodge. The point is not making it about knowing how the system works, but making it about the actual execution.
The vicissitude in CD's games is the wrong type of difficulty. And the AD...well...that's another story on its own. Simply a pathetic gimmick.
I'm not saying CD's formula is perfect, but at least it has involved more in one game than Core's formula did in 5 iterations. I don't want to play the same game every single time, otherwise there is really no point in developing a sequel.
Do you mean "evolved"?
The old mechanics present no actual challenge. You need only to think things in advance. Maybe CD haven't made use of it that much yet, but the system they created makes for a more interactive experience in the sense that you have to act as action takes place.
In the old games if you needed only to count the squares between you and your destination to know what to do in terms of platforming.
I want the game world to feel and react as if I am really there. Not me existing there inside of a robot that is performing all of the moves as I pull levers. The CD games have no "feel". In CORE's games the grid gave you a world that you could understand and comprehend, the same way that you learn as a child what distances, heights and velocities mean in terms of movement in your world.
Does that include turning the gunfight mechanics into something more shooter like? Because shooting is still aided.
Yes. As I said, anything that can make it more of a real life simulation is a plus. But I also believe that Lara should be a far greater physical specimen than any of us can ever become. That would be the difference, and a major part of the fun.
I want the game world to feel and react as if I am really there. Not me existing there inside of a robot that is performing all of the moves as I pull levers. The CD games have no "feel". In CORE's games the grid gave you a world that you could understand and comprehend, the same way that you learn as a child what distances, heights and velocities mean in terms of movement in your world.
Exactly. I hate the fact that in Legend and Anniversary it really doesn´t matter if you´re positioned right or if you can jump that far because all you have to do is to press the jump button and Lara will magically land exactly where she´s supposed to even though she shouldn´t have from the point she´s standing or the side she´s facing or the way you jumped. I expect her to jump automatically in Undeworld...
I agree with Eddie here and with everything he said.
rr_carroll
03-05-08, 23:59
...I expect her to jump automatically in Undeworld...
What's this, the bowdlerized version of the Nude Raider cheat?
Forgive this frivolous response to your valuable post, Survival. :o
To answer the question to this thread's title-
Yes, its just you.
:wve:
Well, it is a 12 year old game! :yik: What the hell did you expect? :confused:
It was fantastic for it's time ;)
Legend 4ever
04-05-08, 06:34
Exactly. I hate the fact that in Legend and Anniversary it really doesn´t matter if you´re positioned right or if you can jump that far because all you have to do is to press the jump button and Lara will magically land exactly where she´s supposed to even though she shouldn´t have from the point she´s standing or the side she´s facing or the way you jumped. I expect her to jump automatically in Undeworld...
I agree with Eddie here and with everything he said.
On this I agree, but I don't see any drastic, Armageddon, apocalyptic problem there. As long as it is called Tomb Raider I am buying it!
What's this, the bowdlerized version of the Nude Raider cheat?
Forgive this frivolous response to your valuable post, Survival. :o
:vlol:
On this I agree, but I don't see any drastic, Armageddon, apocalyptic problem there. As long as it is called Tomb Raider I am buying it!
I will wait for the demo... I´m not saying this is some kind of end of the TR world but I don´t want to buy another TR without trying it first and seeing if there´s a point in spending my money on another TR :).
I think people here are a little to sensitive when it comes to critique about the very first Tomb Raider game, it’s not perfect, it never was.
I’ve played it back in 1996 and it was one of the very first 3D games I ever played. I totally understand the nostalgia that people feel because I feel it as well lol
I love Tomb Raider and always will, and unlike many people I still think the graphics are great for it’s time.
But I too made the mistake to play TR1 after playing TRA, I will never do that again, even though I’ve played every Tomb Raider game so much I know exactly where every item and enemy and secret is I still couldn’t get used to the lack of details in the rooms, objects and horrible slow controls. It made me realise just how different those 11 years made in gameplay and graphics.
It’s not just you, if you compare movement and graphics from TR1 to TRA of course TRA wins hands down.
I think you need to have played TR1 back in the day or at least a few years ago to still appreciate it’s beauty, nostalgia is probably one of the best parts of playing old games again, you really can’t have that when you play a game from 1996 in 2008 without ever having played it.
In Legend if you have to get from point A to point B there is also only one "perfect" route.
My point is that finding it is vastly easier most of the time.
No new games will involve the exact style and movement variety that the original games partially-incidentally managed, but, as I mentioned, TRU will hopefully evoke it by offering enough (in this case intentional) movement and exploration options that working out what is optimal will be a challenge in itself, unlike Legend and AE, which seem stuck in some odd place in the middle in that regard.
VampiraJen
06-05-08, 17:27
you can't really have nostalgic feelings about a game you didn't play years ago. i like to check out old games i missed first time around, but i just try to compair it to other old games, and what they were capable of back then to make my judgements. a lot of games back then were clunky but lara, to me, was alwaays were gracefull.
1 - The vicissitude in CD's games is the wrong type of difficulty. And the AD...well...that's another story on its own. Simply a pathetic gimmick.
2 - Do you mean "evolved"?
3 - I want the game world to feel and react as if I am really there. Not me existing there inside of a robot that is performing all of the moves as I pull levers. The CD games have no "feel". In CORE's games the grid gave you a world that you could understand and comprehend, the same way that you learn as a child what distances, heights and velocities mean in terms of movement in your world.
4 - Yes. As I said, anything that can make it more of a real life simulation is a plus. But I also believe that Lara should be a far greater physical specimen than any of us can ever become. That would be the difference, and a major part of the fun.
1- I don't see what is so bad about it. I don't particularly like it but it doesn't bother me either. The truth is people around here keep saying they want the games to be harder. I think the AD was a sound inclusion. It feels right in the context of the combat and has a logic to it. Much better than what we saw in Legend.
2 - Yep I meant evolved. I swear I'm developing some kind of writing dyslexia. I know it's evolved yet I typed involved :p
3 - Well, it is your opinion. But I think the grid system only enforced the idea that you were in fact playing AS a robot. There was no feel to it. I could say exactly when and what button to press to a proxy and have the same result.
4 - Conceptually I don't agree with you. Lara doesn't have to be Superman. She only needs to be Batman. No super stuff, just logically possible and hard to do. She should climb as the best climber on the planet. Maybe slightly better. Not more than that. If a jump is physically impossible I don't want Lara to be able to pull it off. There needs to be balance of course, but the fact she doesn't get tired is balancing enough, for me.
My point is that finding it is vastly easier most of the time.
No new games will involve the exact style and movement variety that the original games partially-incidentally managed, but, as I mentioned, TRU will hopefully evoke it by offering enough (in this case intentional) movement and exploration options that working out what is optimal will be a challenge in itself, unlike Legend and AE, which seem stuck in some odd place in the middle in that regard.
What I meant by perfect route between A and B was actually a straight line. As in you already know where to go but you need to do it in the least amount of frames of animation possible. The path to the end of the level is pretty straight forward in TRA. But TR1 hadn't that manny forks-in-the-road either.
What I meant by perfect route between A and B was actually a straight line. As in you already know where to go but you need to do it in the least amount of frames of animation possible. The path to the end of the level is pretty straight forward in TRA. But TR1 hadn't that manny forks-in-the-road either.
No but it had far more side rooms for us to explore, everything about TRA was annoyingly out in the open. No l do not think putting the Midas statue smack in the middle of the first room was an improvement. Nor do l think cutting out all the interesting side rooms in the Cistern was an improvement. Some were quite challenging, even with Lara's new moves and agility they could have still been challenging. The side caves from the Lost Valley, with their surprise attacks was removed, the level did not have to be the same, and certainly expanding the village into the valley made more sense, but there was not that much to do and again everything was out in the open, no caves for us to explore, and to add insult to injury we were not even allowed to explore all the window dressing which looked so interesting, why? Because it was not the way for Lara to go, more of the one trek mind mentality. l realise TRA was a bit of a rush job, but still for me it was not as good as the original, l had always dreamed of a remake that would be better than the original, and TRA did not live up to that. It was a good game, certainly St. Francis' Folly and the Sanctuary of the Scion were brilliant, but some, although they looked good, were not even close to being as good as the original, simply because the gameplay and exploration was not there.
I realize TRA was a bit of a rush job, but still for me it was not as good as the original
I don't think TRA was better than the original either. Far from it. But I think TRA was a far greater achievement than most give it credit for. It also depends a lot on your expectations. I have a perfect remake inside my head, as well, but I can't realistically ask for some of the things I want. Anyway, the point is that people draw a picture of a very complex and nonlinear game when they think about TR1 and I don't really think that is true. TR1 was a masterpiece but it wasn't the ultimate videogame challenge. And part of it's charm is also stuck in the past and deals with perception and expectation. People were just blown away by it in the fledgling years of 3d gaming.
Well most Tomb Raider games have been fairly linear so far, although TR4 did try something a bit different. Unfortunately l seem to have a lousy sense of direction and ended up not knowing if l was coming or going l went through some area's that much. l do not mind if the path to the next level is a straight line, so long as there is something to explore on the way to the door. Lara is a big girl she is not going to get lost if a little shiny trinket, or interesting statue leads her off the path to the exit. l quite liked TR4 despite getting lost, so if we end up with hubs leading in multiple directions l am not going to mind, although l might play with pen and paper beside me so l remember what l have done.
Well most Tomb Raider games have been fairly linear so far, although TR4 did try something a bit different.
Exactly. TR4 was as far as non-linearity went in the franchise.
Well most Tomb Raider games have been fairly linear so far, although TR4 did try something a bit different. Unfortunately l seem to have a lousy sense of direction and ended up not knowing if l was coming or going l went through some area's that much. l do not mind if the path to the next level is a straight line, so long as there is something to explore on the way to the door. Lara is a big girl she is not going to get lost if a little shiny trinket, or interesting statue leads her off the path to the exit. l quite liked TR4 despite getting lost, so if we end up with hubs leading in multiple directions l am not going to mind, although l might play with pen and paper beside me so l member what l have done.
It's nice to know I wasn't the only one going bonkers with that game.
It's an old game and the industry has evolved a lot over the years, so I could see how this would be deemed clunky. If it was simply a matter of getting TR to run on my computer correctly, I'd still be playing it now. :)
l sometimes happily play a level or two of Tomb Raider 1 on the PC, generally l am a console player though, my fingers seem incapable of hitting the right button on a keyboard. l will eventually replay a bit of TR4 on the PS1, l still have all my old saves so might just choose some of my favourite levels to play. The only classic game l would never play completely again is Chronicles, because of the bugs and l hate the VCI levels. Mind you my taste in games has changed a bit since 2000, give it a couple of more years and l might actually change my mind about the VCI levels, the bugs unfortunately cannot be fixed in my PS1 game. :( l might eventually pluck up the courage to play it on the PC just to see if it is as buggy. l would have been quite happy with the old controls, grid and improved graphics for AOD, l had happily replayed most of the old games annually since they came out, but no Core had to make it then try and update it, controls ended up worse than the PS1 version.
mizuno_suisei
09-05-08, 17:37
Im sorry.. but "Torpedo Tits" :vlol:
I guess you could say TR1 Had its flaws, but for so long ago, We can't really critise them. Love Tomb Raider I and always will :D
These days, TR1 does seem alot worse than other games in many ways. I am a bit surprised at how much I like it, considering I played almost all the other TR games first, but I think that it is so popular today because of the general feeling to it. The atmosphere is just so beautiful at times and the smooth, beautiful music really adds to that. The main theme is a good example of this, playing at various times throughout the game, and then there is the Colosseum, the remains of the Midas statue and the giant Sphinx. At these three points in the game, the same piece of music plays and I just love it. It gives a real sense of how beautiful the area is, and also the mystery surrounding it. Why is there an underground colosseum? Who built the Midas statue? Why is there an underground sphinx? These are some of the wondrous remains of ancient culture that have not really been shown in such grandeur in later games.
Of course, another thing people love about this game is the exploration and ingenous level design. There are moments like the quest for the lead bar in Palace Midas which takes you back across the level to previously inaccessible areas, and the sheer complexity of the cistern. There are also levels like the Tomb of Qualopec, full of interesting puzzles and the very tall tower in St. Francis' Folly, with great side rooms and puzzles. There are many more moments in this game, like the ones I have described, which make it one of my absolute favourites.
meh, there is no skill involved with the current tr games
Well one of the joys of Tomb Raider 1 was you did not need the skill required in later games, it is about the same difficulty as Legend. The with Tomb Raider 2 they started making the games harder, TR2 was still OK, but TR3 was going a bit to far on the "skill," it was becoming more of a challenge to complete the game than fun.
Well one of the joys of Tomb Raider 1 was you did not need the skill required in later games, it is about the same difficulty as Legend. The with Tomb Raider 2 they started making the games harder, TR2 was still OK, but TR3 was going a bit to far on the "skill," it was becoming more of a challenge to complete the game than fun.
Are you really really sure?! :)
Yep, l never got lost in Tomb Raider 1, the battles were never that hard, the game was incredibly generous with the medipacks and the goal was usually pretty easy to determine, Lara would usually look at where you were meant to go, plenty of visual hints in the game, and the path was usually pretty obvious anyway. Only the secrets in TR1 were harder, Legend opting out for the easier rewards. The controls were obviously a bit harder than Legend's, but saying a game is harder than another because it has difficult controls is hardly justified. You are not meant to be constantly thinking of the controls when playing a game, you are not meant to have to "master" the controls before you can get anywhere in a game. The reason why so many have problems with the Legend controls is because they want to make it harder by using keyboard only and not the mouse, which makes about as much sense as trying to run with one leg tied behind your back. New players rarely complain about problems with the controls in Legend, because they are so easy to grasp.
Well one of the joys of Tomb Raider 1 was you did not need the skill required in later games, it is about the same difficulty as Legend. The with Tomb Raider 2 they started making the games harder, TR2 was still OK, but TR3 was going a bit to far on the "skill," it was becoming more of a challenge to complete the game than fun.
I'm not talking about puzzle solving skill.
I mean it required great hand eye co-ordination and precision. Legend/TRA require very little skill in this way.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd still rather have the "tank controls" in games. Like with Tomb Raider, and Sonic the Hedgehog. Sonic R had just about the same controls as the classic Tomb Raiders, and I found it simple and entertaining to control without many problems (could've had Lara's rolling move though!), in contrast to any of their recent 3D games which make me feel like I'm slipping around everywhere. Tank controls make more sense to me physically, you are actually facing a direction and make moves relative to the direction, whereas the "freestyle" controls don't lend to any direction and thus have to rely on an often annoying and glitchy camera. I mean, who has complained about camera problems in the classic TRs? (besides climbing ladder corners in TR4, good thing they redid the camera system the next game.)
rr_carroll
10-05-08, 04:55
SSJ6Wolf, I'm with you. I don't comment much because I'm still so annoyed with the TRA controls, that I'm not comfortable with them yet (I'm still in the mansion).
Edit: mizuno_suisei - rather than "Torpedo Tits", I think of them as the twin pyramids on her chest. :)
I'm not talking about puzzle solving skill.
I mean it required great hand eye co-ordination and precision. Legend/TRA require very little skill in this way.
Let's be honest about this, if you know what you are doing in the classic games there is also no way you are gonna miss a jump.
I admit there were some really tough moments with a series of jumps where every mistake could lead to your death, but I think that kind of precision is just frustrating anyway.
I'm not talking about puzzle solving skill.
I mean it required great hand eye co-ordination and precision. Legend/TRA require very little skill in this way.
How much skill does it take to take two steps back before jumping and remembering to hold the X button? All that requires is that you constantly think about the controls and how many squares there are, which is boring! There was no variation in Lara's jumping, a jump and grab was going to be exactly 3 squares every time, a running jump 2 squares a standing jump 1, that is not precision, that is just annoying and hardly adds to the gameplay. You play the game 20 times you might not have to think about it, but all the casual players had to think about the grid and controls all the time, that is not what gaming should be about. Tomb Raider 1 was innovative when it came out for its environments, the action, its beautiful FMV's, and its star Lara Croft. Tomb Raider 2 was even better, and the graphics had been improved a bit, after that there were plenty of other adventure games that looked better, had better more responsive controls and better stories, it was nice to have a challenge every year to see if you could beat the latest Tomb Raider game and get all the secrets, but it was no longer as fun to play as Metal Gear Solid, the Resident Evil games Dino Crisis or the truck load of great kids games with cute characters, in the end even Mario was more fun to play.
A tomb raider game should not be trying to make the hardest possible combinations of jumps and flips and adding hazards just to make the game hard. Tomb Raider 3 and its 200 sudden deaths is what started to kill Tomb Raider, the fans complained they wanted harder games and Core foolishly believed that was a good thing for the franchise, only for a minority was it a good thing, most just went and found something that was actually fun to play. Tomb Raider should not be about having to make precise jumps it should be about exploration, solving puzzles, avoiding traps and having the occasional fight. Precise jumping is to do with an archaic control system and basing games on a grid, and should not have anything to do with gaming these days. Fair enough the magnets in Lara's hands could be a little weaker so we can actually miss jumps more often if the player is not careful, but it would still not be the "precision" of the old grid system, and l am glad of that.
VampiraJen
10-05-08, 10:58
How much skill does it take to take two steps back before jumping and remembering to hold the X button?
you could argue that about any game, it's ultimatly about hitting the right buttons at the right time.
Yep, l never got lost in Tomb Raider 1, the battles were never that hard, the game was incredibly generous with the medipacks and the goal was usually pretty easy to determine, Lara would usually look at where you were meant to go, plenty of visual hints in the game, and the path was usually pretty obvious anyway.
i think she did this a grand total of two times in the first game, once in the caves, once in natla's mines.
the thing about tomb raider is that on the surface they seem the same, but the old ones are actually quite different. the first game was about quiet exploration. the second more action packed. the third non linier. the fourth all in the one country. i think this thread has proven that every one has different idea's of what makes a good tr game depending on what kind of gamer you are.
i personally love the first game, because of sentimental reasons, but also because i think it really is a good game. it may not be as technically impressive as games now, the controlls may be clunky and awkward, but it offered (at the time) huge area's of exploration and i personally had never seen a game like that before. i don't remember ever being that bothered that there wasn't constant fighting, if anything the lack of fighting made me look forward to it more and scare me silly when i could hear an animal but not see it.
I also don't think of tr1 as linier. yes, where you need to go and what you need to do is fixed, but when you're playing the game for the first time and you don't know what the goals are you do have to wander about for a while to figure it out.
How can anyone no get lost in the cistren...? :)
the thing about tomb raider is that on the surface they seem the same, but the old ones are actually quite different. the first game was about quiet exploration. the second more action packed. the third non linier. the fourth all in the one country. i think this thread has proven that every one has different idea's of what makes a good tr game depending on what kind of gamer you are.
Good point. All TR games are different and, in my opinion, they are all really good in their own ways. TR1 will probably always be one of my favourites because of the reasons I described before. Very few other TR moments came close to the feeling of wonder from the original.
i don't remember ever being that bothered that there wasn't constant fighting, if anything the lack of fighting made me look forward to it more and scare me silly when i could hear an animal but not see it.
I particularly liked that there were not many human enemies in the original. It made me look forward to the fights that there were, especially since they were actual characters in the game.
Something which I didn't mention before is the Midas garden. I cannot work out why they left it out of TRA. I know they did not want to keep all areas from the original and wanted to improve, but this was one of the most beautiful areas of the original.
The loss of the beautiful garden was probably something to do with Crystal Dynamics idea of symmetry. :(
Eddie Haskell
10-05-08, 15:15
How much skill does it take to take two steps back before jumping and remembering to hold the X button? All that requires is that you constantly think about the controls and how many squares there are, which is boring! There was no variation in Lara's jumping, a jump and grab was going to be exactly 3 squares every time, a running jump 2 squares a standing jump 1, that is not precision, that is just annoying and hardly adds to the gameplay. You play the game 20 times you might not have to think about it, but all the casual players had to think about the grid and controls all the time, that is not what gaming should be about. Tomb Raider 1 was innovative when it came out for its environments, the action, its beautiful FMV's, and its star Lara Croft. Tomb Raider 2 was even better, and the graphics had been improved a bit, after that there were plenty of other adventure games that looked better, had better more responsive controls and better stories, it was nice to have a challenge every year to see if you could beat the latest Tomb Raider game and get all the secrets, but it was no longer as fun to play as Metal Gear Solid, the Resident Evil games Dino Crisis or the truck load of great kids games with cute characters, in the end even Mario was more fun to play.
A tomb raider game should not be trying to make the hardest possible combinations of jumps and flips and adding hazards just to make the game hard. Tomb Raider 3 and its 200 sudden deaths is what started to kill Tomb Raider, the fans complained they wanted harder games and Core foolishly believed that was a good thing for the franchise, only for a minority was it a good thing, most just went and found something that was actually fun to play. Tomb Raider should not be about having to make precise jumps it should be about exploration, solving puzzles, avoiding traps and having the occasional fight. Precise jumping is to do with an archaic control system and basing games on a grid, and should not have anything to do with gaming these days. Fair enough the magnets in Lara's hands could be a little weaker so we can actually miss jumps more often if the player is not careful, but it would still not be the "precision" of the old grid system, and l am glad of that.
It takes skill to work those controls fluidly. I have not executed the technique you described since I first played the game. I simply run and jump. The skill is in the precision movement executed fluidly and without pause. Accuracy is vital, and therefore far superior in a game in which the main constituency of the TR series is movement. Subtracting the skill of precision and accuracy from it is ludicrous and self-defeating. Certainly the game is occasionally about other things as well. But if accuracy and real control hazards are not going to be a component, than why have high cliffs, tough climbs, dangerous jumps, etc.? The game is different from many games in that the movement (getting from point A to point B) is king.
The loss of the beautiful garden was probably something to do with Crystal Dynamics idea of symmetry. :(
What do they think symmetry is? It would have been great if the level had started with the Midas garden and then we had moved on to the statue where it began in TRA. No loss of symmetry there.
Edit: I do think that building the whole statue was one of the things that they improved in TRA. They should have kept the beautiful music though.
touchthesky
12-05-08, 13:26
I prefer the harder controls. The recent games are more difficult to me because I'm so used to slow Lara.
Edit; I like the lesser ammount of huamn enemies to. And I agree about Midas.
Imo, the original controls were alot better...
At the time, TR1 was incredible. The graphics, controls, enemies, puzzles, traps, and everything about it were amazing. It's still a great game today even, and I play it frequently. Yes, the controls and graphics may not be as great as the games today, but it was made twelve years ago. If you played this when it was released, I guarantee you would have been blown away.
But at least you gave the original a try, unlike most TRL/TRA fans who still think Legend was the first Tomb Raider game.
Oh, and one more thing, I actually prefer the way Lara moved in the originals. She moved at a speed a real person would. She actually rotated and moved her feet in order to turn around, instead of turning around in under 1/10th of a second.
instead of turning around in under 1/10th of a second.
this is actually VERY annoying in the new games :(
Oh, and one more thing, I actually prefer the way Lara moved in the originals. She moved at a speed a real person would. She actually rotated and moved her feet in order to turn around, instead of turning around in under 1/10th of a second.
I think all the TR games have missed the mark on that one. Core made it too slow, Crystal made it too fast - There's no realistic medium. It doesn't take that long to change directions, especially considering marching moves like the about-face, but at the same time, Lara almost seems to teleport herself into another position in the newer games.
Eddie Haskell
14-05-08, 13:36
I think all the TR games have missed the mark on that one. Core made it too slow, Crystal made it too fast - There's no realistic medium. It doesn't take that long to change directions, especially considering marching moves like the about-face, but at the same time, Lara almost seems to teleport herself into another position in the newer games.
I believe that CD frets too much on the look of the animation, not the timing of the movement. They seem to place a greater emphasis on how the character looks when turning 180° instead of simply making it realistically functional. CORE knew that the footwork was probably impossible to get right in '96 (in animation and speed), so they devised the roll to compensate.
But I do disagree with you that the old games were "slow". They were however if you operated Lara that way. One who has great control should not be stopping and measuring their steps.
i prefer the way that tomb raider was made in the 90's.
i will happily play any new tr that comes out but it was still better on ps1/pc.
I believe that CD frets too much on the look of the animation, not the timing of the movement. They seem to place a greater emphasis on how the character looks when turning 180° instead of simply making it realistically functional. CORE knew that the footwork was probably impossible to get right in '96 (in animation and speed), so they devised the roll to compensate.
But I do disagree with you that the old games were "slow". They were however if you operated Lara that way. One who has great control should not be stopping and measuring their steps.
I'm not talking about actually operating Lara to a perfection - I'm just talking about the animation itself. Sure, if you can move her without having to turn around, that's irrelevant, but the slow animation exists whether or not you use it.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.