View Full Version : The Best In The Series?
James_Rutland
24-05-08, 16:18
What do you guys think of Tomb Raider 1? I think it's the best. Along with TR3. A large range of levels, hard difficulty, great puzzles, classic Lara, the first in the series, what more could you want? :D It's the first, which created all the magic when i first put it into my playstation console.
What do you guys think of TR1? Do you think it will rival with Underworld, or will it forever stay the best in the series?
I think TR1 is one of the best in the series, and I believe I will still think so after playing TRU (although I expect TRU to be very enjoyable). I have explained why I like it so much here. (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=2695595&postcount=82)
That is interesting that you say that. Besides having primitive graphics and not a very dynamic control system for Lara, Tomb Raider was the beginning of the amazing adventures of Lara Croft (well, to the audience anyway [she took on Bigfoot before pursuing the Scion]).
I myself believe that Lara has advanced beyond that stage of her life, using more eloquent, witty speech as opposed to such adolescent remarks as "evolution on steroids." I like where Lara is going as a character and I don't think Tomb Raider will rival any newer games. Especially if Underworld ends up being as good as it sounds.
da tomb raider!
24-05-08, 17:08
I think it's the best. Along with TR3.
Same here.
TR1 is still the best because it's true to the original (duh!) concept. It's about isolation, tomb raiding and atmosphere. You need only to take those 3 elements into account to figure what I think about the other games in the series.
Part of TR2 was good.
TR3 was really bad for the most part.
TR4 was good, but shouldn't have featured the human enemies and vehicle levels.
TR5 was really bad with the exception of the Colosseum level maybe.
I haven't played AOD.
Legend had a few good parts.
Anniversary was very good since it was based on basically the same principles as the original (being a remake and all)
If a game that is true to the original concept (isolation, atmosphere and tomb raiding), has a soundtrack worthy of TR1 and manages to be a little more challenging as far as exploration goes (when compared with TRA) is made then it could eventually be a better game than the original. Until then though, TR1 is number one BY FAR.
TR1 is still the best because it's true to the original (duh!) concept. It's about isolation, tomb raiding and atmosphere. You need only to take those 3 elements into account to figure what I think about the other games in the series.
I like the atmosphere as well. Who else thinks the music in TR1 was really atmospheric?
Part of TR2 was good.
TR3 was really bad for the most part.
TR5 was really bad with the exception of the Colosseum level maybe.
What do you think was good and bad about these games?
TR4 was good, but shouldn't have featured the human enemies and vehicle levels.
What don't you like about the vehicle levels? I love driving vehicles in TR games and am glad that TRU will at least contain Lara's motorbike.
1- I like the atmosphere as well. Who else thinks the music in TR1 was really atmospheric?
2 - What do you think was good and bad about these games?
3 - What don't you like about the vehicle levels? I love driving vehicles in TR games and am glad that TRU will at least contain Lara's motorbike.
1- I sure do. The best soundtrack (much like the game) by far. It shows less can be more.
2-
TR2 introduced mercenaries. Isolation is thus immediately killed. It also introduced city levels. That means you don't raid tombs in those levels. It introduced vehicles that can kill the sense of atmosphere sometimes (specially since they are viewed as actiony segments. TR1 was never actiony). So my sacred triumvirate started being neglected with TR2.
TR3 suffered from much the same problems but to an even higher degrees. Those bad elements were expanded upon, to the point where Lara was using bazookas (would it ever make sense to use bazookas while tomb raiding), was running around within a high security compound in Nevada (how more non-tombish can you get?) surrounded by loads of NPCs (bye bye isolation). It wasn't about Tomb Raider anymore; these were the Adventures of Lara.
TR5's story was completely devoid of structure : just a reason to throw Lara in a variety of situations. It also suffered from the same mistakes made in TR3.
3- Like I said before vehicles kill the eerie atmosphere that should be paramount in TR games, in my opinion. TR was never a game about "actiony" thrills and so I don't understand the point of vehicles in the game. You are no longer exploring, it's more about getting fast from point A to point B.
You know how some people say Lara is a mixture of Indiana Jones and James Bond? Well, the James Bond element wasn't present before TR2. And that marked the decline of the series for me.
You know how some people say Lara is a mixture of Indiana Jones and James Bond? Well, the James Bond element wasn't present before TR2. And that marked the decline of the series for me.
Indiana Jones drives vehicles sometimes doesn't he? I see your point though. I wouldn't want all TR levels to involve driving vehicles around, it's just nice occasionally and I'm happy if the game is mostly tomb raiding.
Trevor_M92
24-05-08, 19:47
Why does everyone on this board continuously say that TR3 is one of the best? If you ask me both Tomb Raiders 1 and 2 were the greatest out of the entire Tomb Raider series.
I think TR1 is my fave game in the seies, mostly because I was the 1st game I brougt for playstation other than Crash Bash(Crash Bandicoot game that came free)
I think that so far I found TR1 and TRA the best because I like the story and because they are the same story TRa made me think of my 1st time playing TR1
I liked TR3 and TRAoD as well, I like to get involved with the storylines alot.
TR1 for me was TOMB RAIDER, the only truely original adventure game I ever played, It was such a great game then and still is now, i think nothing will ever beat it in my opinion.
Why does everyone on this board continuously say that TR3 is one of the best? If you ask me both Tomb Raiders 1 and 2 were the greatest out of the entire Tomb Raider series.
I didn't like TR2, I thought it was the worst of the TR series.
TR1 was the best game I ever played.:D
I don’t think it’s the best.
The atmosphere and nostalgia for me are still unbeatable, but most of the other Tomb Raider games are just better, better gameplay, more fun, more difficult, better puzzles etc etc
Eddie Chase
25-05-08, 19:32
TR1 is my favourite of the series, even though by any other metric it's not the best - the later games refined just about every single technical aspect. (Though it's a credit to how good the original was that the fundamental gameplay stayed much the same through the PS1 era.) But they weren't as much fun.
And even the 'improvements' weren't always that. Flares? Great idea in theory, as the universal light source of TR1 was hardly realistic, but in practice it meant large areas where you couldn't see a damn thing. Sprinting? Marvellous, now I have to worry about timing as well as precision jumps. Hub levels? Now they can create larger environments - and make us backtrack through them over and over, as well as enduring loading screens every few minutes. (As for RPG-style skill development [AoD] and bullet-time [TRA]... sheesh!)
TR1 just clicked perfectly, right from the start. Great character, great story, great level design, and the rough edges were minor enough to overlook. It's the purest Tomb Raider experience - just you, Lara and lots of wondering "How the hell am I supposed to get up there?"
It IS the best entry in the series but not my personal favourite :wve:
TR1 is my favourite of the series, even though by any other metric it's not the best - the later games refined just about every single technical aspect. (Though it's a credit to how good the original was that the fundamental gameplay stayed much the same through the PS1 era.) But they weren't as much fun.
And even the 'improvements' weren't always that. Flares? Great idea in theory, as the universal light source of TR1 was hardly realistic, but in practice it meant large areas where you couldn't see a damn thing. Sprinting? Marvellous, now I have to worry about timing as well as precision jumps. Hub levels? Now they can create larger environments - and make us backtrack through them over and over, as well as enduring loading screens every few minutes. (As for RPG-style skill development [AoD] and bullet-time [TRA]... sheesh!)
Well it's exactly because of that that I can't name any of sequels as "better" or "the best". They can be technologically more sophisticated or even more sophisticated from a level design standpoint but in the end I think overall quality is about balance and "feeling right" (being true to itself).
TombRaiderTim
25-05-08, 21:11
TR1 is the first and the best, since seeing the never released game which i don't think i can mention here seemed to be much better than TRA as it looked as though it kept near enough all of the original features of TR1 but improving them just by the slightest, mainly th textures and the shape. For example, the never released game included the original style of the TR1 mutant eggs, the atlantis rooms were kept and not cut out. To me now, the only way the company would ever stand a chance of beating TR1 is to release the never released game, no other game the company creates would be able to counter the atomasphere of TR1 except for the unreleased game. If they ever release it, i would jump for joy! Also, TR1 was the only one in the series that had the experiance to Tomb Raid, therefore keeping the title Tomb Raider.
1- I sure do. The best soundtrack (much like the game) by far. It shows less can be more.
2-
TR2 introduced mercenaries. Isolation is thus immediately killed. It also introduced city levels. That means you don't raid tombs in those levels. It introduced vehicles that can kill the sense of atmosphere sometimes (specially since they are viewed as actiony segments. TR1 was never actiony). So my sacred triumvirate started being neglected with TR2.
TR3 suffered from much the same problems but to an even higher degrees. Those bad elements were expanded upon, to the point where Lara was using bazookas (would it ever make sense to use bazookas while tomb raiding), was running around within a high security compound in Nevada (how more non-tombish can you get?) surrounded by loads of NPCs (bye bye isolation). It wasn't about Tomb Raider anymore; these were the Adventures of Lara.
TR5's story was completely devoid of structure : just a reason to throw Lara in a variety of situations. It also suffered from the same mistakes made in TR3.
3- Like I said before vehicles kill the eerie atmosphere that should be paramount in TR games, in my opinion. TR was never a game about "actiony" thrills and so I don't understand the point of vehicles in the game. You are no longer exploring, it's more about getting fast from point A to point B.
You know how some people say Lara is a mixture of Indiana Jones and James Bond? Well, the James Bond element wasn't present before TR2. And that marked the decline of the series for me.
This is the one of the series which should have never been released as it does not even live up to it's name, not one bit! It should be called Town Raider not Tomb Raider as where the hell is the tombs!?
orangetiger
27-05-08, 00:01
TR1 is the best by far. None of the sequels gets even close.
TR1 is the best in the series, and shall hopefully always be. It is exactly what the title says, 'Tomb Raider', and the storyline, is brilliant even though it's slightly confusing. Unfortunatly TRA didn't give many memories of this game at all, guess the graphics & physics do count.
To be honest, if you are talking about Tombs, The Last Revelation is then the most Tomb Raider of them all, unless you think Caves, City of Vilacabamba, Lost Valey, plus Atlantis levels are tombs (which they are obviously not), it's not a very strong argument to criticize other Tomb Raiders ;)
TR3 & TR1 I believe are on the same level as the best. :D
To be honest, if you are talking about Tombs, The Last Revelation is then the most Tomb Raider of them all, unless you think Caves, City of Vilacabamba, Lost Valey, plus Atlantis levels are tombs (which they are obviously not), it's not a very strong argument to criticize other Tomb Raiders ;)
If The Last Revelation had TR1's game engine, it would proberbly be on top. But I hated the game engine on that game. TR1's game engine was far better, but you are right about the 'Tomb' Part, it just feels like she really is raiding tombs, even though she wasn't :(
It was the same game engine. TR1 engine was kept until TRC, but they kept adding stuff to the monster.
That's what I call "nightmare coding" :P That source has to be fun to peek at, with so many patches.
TR1 had the earliest incarnation of the TR classic engine, so it's hardly the best (technically speaking). It had plenty of trimming artifacts, horrid per-vertex, linear gouraud static lighting (compensated with superb level design, thanks god), wasn't very optimised (the # of polygons on screen was almost doubled in TR2, it was so low in TR1 that you got those triangle breasts on Lara), had a very short depth of field (everything turns black very soon, so less polygons have to be rendered), had no support for outdoors rooms and I can keep going.
Maybe you like TR1 the most, even you can say it's the best one, but definitely, you *can't* say it had the best engine version ('cause we are talking about the same engine used in all TR1-5 - they only kept optimizing and adding features to it).
To be honest, if you are talking about Tombs, The Last Revelation is then the most Tomb Raider of them all, unless you think Caves, City of Vilacabamba, Lost Valey, plus Atlantis levels are tombs (which they are obviously not), it's not a very strong argument to criticize other Tomb Raiders ;)
If that was directed at me then, yeah I'm well aware that not all levels in TR1 were tombs. In fact only two of them were actual tombs. That's not the point though. The process of finding those places plunges Lara into loads of ancient ruins. That is part of the tomb raiding process. Significant tombs are always hidden and concealed.
And my argument wasn't based on tomb raiding alone. I mention atmosphere and isolation as key.
In s nutshell the real important thing in my opinion should be conveying the feeling of being in a place where no one has been for centuries and getting that eerie feeling of solitude within a place that served a purpose a long time ago. Exploring lost and deserted ancient ruins.
Ancient meaning atmosphere.
Lost and deserted meaning isolation.
Ruins meaning "tomb raiding".
It was the same game engine. TR1 engine was kept until TRC, but they kept adding stuff to the monster.
That's what I call "nightmare coding" :P That source has to be fun to peek at, with so many patches.
TR1 had the earliest incarnation of the TR classic engine, so it's hardly the best (technically speaking). It had plenty of trimming artifacts, horrid per-vertex, linear gouraud static lighting (compensated with superb level design, thanks god), wasn't very optimised (the # of polygons on screen was almost doubled in TR2, it was so low in TR1 that you got those triangle breasts on Lara), had a very short depth of field (everything turns black very soon, so less polygons have to be rendered), had no support for outdoors rooms and I can keep going.
Maybe you like TR1 the most, even you can say it's the best one, but definitely, you *can't* say it had the best engine version ('cause we are talking about the same engine used in all TR1-5 - they only kept optimizing and adding features to it).
Right so how are you supposed to know when a game has a new game engine. When it goes onto new-gen consoles?
If that was directed at me then, yeah I'm well aware that not all levels in TR1 were tombs. In fact only two of them were actual tombs. That's not the point though. The process of finding those places plunges Lara into loads of ancient ruins. That is part of the tomb raiding process. Significant tombs are always hidden and concealed.
It actually wasn't, but I think the whole "tombs" issue is way too overrated. I do understand why people miss the first TR - it was the only true plataform game of Tomb Raider series. The games since TR2 became less plataform-minding. Specially, because no other TR IMO had some many golden moments as TR1, ok you had "Barkang Monastery" in TR2, which has got to be the best level ever, but TR1, each level is sort of unique and special, that's why I like it very much. St. Francis' Folly and Palace Midas will always be golden levels for me no matter what :)
It actually wasn't, but I think the whole "tombs" issue is way too overrated. I do understand why people miss the first TR - it was the only true plataform game of Tomb Raider series. The games since TR2 became less plataform-minding. Specially, because no other TR IMO had some many golden moments as TR1, ok you had "Barkang Monastery" in TR2, which has got to be the best level ever, but TR1, each level is sort of unique and special, that's why I like it very much. St. Francis' Folly and Palace Midas will always be golden levels for me no matter what :)
The Atlantean levels are my babies. No.1's over here, even the Unfinished Business 'Atlantean Stronghold' & 'The Hive' were good. Speaking of that - http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=2738218&postcount=7
Right so how are you supposed to know when a game has a new game engine. When it goes onto new-gen consoles?
Not necessarily.
It's just that's pretty obvious that all of them work on the same basis. Plus, I've read it somewhere: they kept upgrading the initial engine.
The TR1 engine is quite simple, yet effective. The world is divided in rooms, and each room in fact a 2D grid in which every square has a floor height and a roof height. Piling rooms like this you have the illusion of a full 3D-world. This is really smart, 'cause game logics are really, really easy to calculate this way. Sadly, that made collision with 3D objects inside rooms really messy. It wasn't really good implemented until TR4, and in TR1 it was simply not present (no 3D objects in rooms, just plain sprites).
1.- On TR2 they added outdoor rooms, basic dynamic per-vertex lighting (so you can use flares), and 3D objects instead of sprites.
2.- On TR3 they added diagonal sections (divided a sector in two by its diagonal). They added coloured lighting (in TR and TR2 light was just white). Particles were also added, so fire is now more realistic (in TR and TR2 you just had a lame sprite). They added crawlspaces and the running movement.
3.- On TR4 they added the "joints" in Lara´s model (which they changed because of that), so you can't see how the arm ends and the body begins, like in previous installments. They added vertical poles as well, non-block pushable objects, better collision with 3D objects, better lighting effects. Plus, now the controls are more responsive (in TR1-3 you had to press JUMP before Lara reached the border when running, in TR4 Lara jumps at the right time - I remember when I first played TR4 in 2000 :P I found the change so annoying as I was so used to the old controls - I kept falling or not reaching until I got the grip of it :D).
4.- On TR5 the engine is basicly the same with the addition of a couple of gfx effects and the ability to walk tightropes.
Not necessarily.
It's just that's pretty obvious that all of them work on the same basis. Plus, I've read it somewhere: they kept upgrading the initial engine.
The TR1 engine is quite simple, yet effective. The world is divided in rooms, and each room in fact a 2D grid in which every square has a floor height and a roof height. Piling rooms like this you have the illusion of a full 3D-world. This is really smart, 'cause game logics are really, really easy to calculate this way. Sadly, that made collision with 3D objects inside rooms really messy. It wasn't really good implemented until TR4, and in TR1 it was simply not present (no 3D objects in rooms, just plain sprites).
1.- On TR2 they added outdoor rooms, basic dynamic per-vertex lighting (so you can use flares), and 3D objects instead of sprites.
2.- On TR3 they added diagonal sections (divided a sector in two by its diagonal). They added coloured lighting (in TR and TR2 light was just white). Particles were also added, so fire is now more realistic (in TR and TR2 you just had a lame sprite). They added crawlspaces and the running movement.
3.- On TR4 they added the "joints" in Lara´s model (which they changed because of that), so you can't see how the arm ends and the body begins, like in previous installments. They added vertical poles as well, non-block pushable objects, better collision with 3D objects, better lighting effects. Plus, now the controls are more responsive (in TR1-3 you had to press JUMP before Lara reached the border when running, in TR4 Lara jumps at the right time - I remember when I first played TR4 in 2000 :P I found the change so annoying as I was so used to the old controls - I kept falling or not reaching until I got the grip of it :D).
4.- On TR5 the engine is basicly the same with the addition of a couple of gfx effects and the ability to walk tightropes.
How exactly do they manage to do all this exactly, obviously with complex software to make the level editor. But, did they even have the physics, to be able to make TRC when TR1 came out.
I think you got it wrong.
They coded the original TR1 engine in 1996. Then they kept upgrading it, making it better, fixing stuff and things like that. You know, change the sources (programming), recompiling, and that :)
To code a game you just need a nice text editor, your compiler, and lots of knowledge. Then the artists do their part. But engine coding... that's done in a big screen full of gibberish ;)
#include <stdio.h>
void main(void) {
printf("hello, world");
}
Only a million of lines longer ;)
I think you got it wrong.
They coded the original TR1 engine in 1996. Then they kept upgrading it, making it better, fixing stuff and things like that. You know, change the sources (programming), recompiling, and that :)
I know what your on about, well not the recompilling etc, too confusing for me. I was on about when they made it back in 1996 for TR1.
I just want to make my own Game Engine.
To hard a lot of people say :(
btw - They started making TR1 in 1993, finished in 1996. Then carried on for the next sequals until TRC, which only took a year each, why? Because, they didn't have to make a brand new level editor, didn't have as much planning like the first one, and so on. Until they started AOD, which took them 3 years, as they made a brand new Game Engine. Anyway it carried on...
It actually wasn't, but I think the whole "tombs" issue is way too overrated. I do understand why people miss the first TR - it was the only true plataform game of Tomb Raider series. The games since TR2 became less plataform-minding. Specially, because no other TR IMO had some many golden moments as TR1, ok you had "Barkang Monastery" in TR2, which has got to be the best level ever, but TR1, each level is sort of unique and special, that's why I like it very much. St. Francis' Folly and Palace Midas will always be golden levels for me no matter what :)
I can't speak for anybody else but it's not platforming/gameplay related for me. It's about those three elements I mentioned and how they weren't recreated in the sequels as powerfully as in TR1.
I know what your on about, well not the recompilling etc, too confusing for me. I was on about when they made it back in 1996 for TR1.
I just want to make my own Game Engine.
To hard a lot of people say :(
btw - They started making TR1 in 1993, finished in 1996. Then carried on for the next sequals until TRC, which only took a year each, why? Because, they didn't have to make a brand new level editor, didn't have as much planning like the first one, and so on. Until they started AOD, which took them 3 years, as they made a brand new Game Engine. Anyway it carried on...
The two main people involved with Tomb Raider 1, Toby Gard the lead artist and Paul Douglas the lead programmer did not even work for Core Design in 2003. Toby's first game was BC Racers which was released in 1995, so l should think Tomb Raider 1 was started in 1995, it might have got on the drawing board in 1994, but l doubt anything of it existed in 1993.
The two main people involved with Tomb Raider 1, Toby Gard the lead artist and Paul Douglas the lead programmer did not even work for Core Design in 2003. Toby's first game was BC Racers which was released in 1995, so l should think Tomb Raider 1 was started in 1995, it might have got on the drawing board in 1994, but l doubt anything of it existed in 1993.[/URL]
But I'm certain it was on a Documentary DVD, I got with the Collectors Edition of Anni.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_raider (http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,24114/)
Go down to 'Development History'. Should say it around there somewhere - "Preliminary work on Tomb Raider commenced in 1993, but it was not until November 1996 that the game actually saw the light of day as a retail product."
And when did wikipedia become infallible? There are plenty of other sources that say Toby started work at Core Design in 1994, and he was working on BC Racers first which was released Dec 1994. The earliest design documentation for the game is 1994, several articles although they say work started in 1993 also say Toby did not want the game to be like Doom, Doom came out in Dec 1993, so when was he thinking about this? This will have to do for the time being l cannot be bothered chasing after them, but Gamasutra is far more reliable than the wiki, just about anything else is more reliable than the wiki.
http://www.gamedevelopment.com/features/20000720/gard_pfv.htm
Toby Gard started working in the games industry in 1994 at Core Design in Derby. While at Core, he conceived the game Tomb Raider and its main character, Lara Croft. Toby was both the designer and lead artist on the project. His roles covered everything from story development, storyboarding, FMV generation, in-game animation, character design and modeling, level flow, title and load screens, box art and marketing/PR materials. This passage from Prima's "Tomb Raider: Game Secrets" book, which was published in 1996.
Q. Where did the idea for Tomb Raider originate?
A. At the beginning of 1994 the game industry appeared to be moving towards a glut of Ultima Underworld rip-offs like Doom for instance. We conceived the idea of taking a corridor style game and introducing a main character, moving away from the first person feel. The idea was the create a game that would look as visually exciting as a cartoon but that offered the same complete freedom of movement that Underworld had.The article below seems a bit strange but will throw it in anyway, Toby actually designed two characters initially one male one female, so he was hardly against the idea of the lead being a male. Also the female character who would later become Lara was seen before the Tank girl movie, unless Toby got the idea from some early previews.
In 1994 Core Design faced commercial failure of the several games it released. Nobody could imagine that the idea of one man, Toby Gard, will solve the problems. After many opposing opinions about what should the new game be like, it was decided that it will be an action title with a male. From the very beginning Toby was against the idea of male character, around the same time he saw the movie Tank Girl after watching the movie Toby was convinced that the main character in the game should be a woman.http://www.uptecnet.com/Rel2/IThappens/Dec.04.HTM
1994
After establishing itself as a publisher in its own right, Core Design was acquired by the CentreGold group - made up of publisher US Gold and distributor CentreSoft. Core Design was autonomous within the group and remained so to this day. They had already started development of its Trailblazing Tomb Raider game under head designer Toby Gard. He sketched out a 3D-exploration title, influenced by Doom an Quake, but where for the first time players could guide a character around a massive 3D temple, an who was a curvy heroine who could run, jump and shoot. This character was named Lara Croft, but was originally going to be named Laura Cruz. http://pages.eidosnet.co.uk/tombraid/croft-central/history/history.htm
This one seems the best.
In 1994 a 21-year old english boy wonder, Toby Gard began creating the idea of a new kind of hero of the feminine persuasion, bucking the trend of the muscle-bound head-banging video soldier. Under his new employer of just eight months, video game developer Core Design, he was given the opportunity to present his ideal vision.http://digital_danger.tripod.com/creation.html
One of those quotes is a but unaccurate. How would Toby base his ideas on Quake, if the game was released in 1996? :P
Ideas are clearly based on Prince Of Persia and Rick Dangerous. You just have to play both those games to realise.
oocladableeblah
01-06-08, 16:11
TR1 is still the best because it's true to the original (duh!) concept. It's about isolation, tomb raiding and atmosphere. You need only to take those 3 elements into account to figure what I think about the other games in the series.
I find it so stupid when people say that the first tr was true to the concept (although you did put duh so that's better) it's just like no **** sherlock it was the first one. :rolleyes:
I like the first one, but I like the second one more. The first is in second.
I find it so stupid when people say that the first tr was true to the concept (although you did put duh so that's better) it's just like no **** sherlock it was the first one. :rolleyes:
The thing is, it could very well be like a number of other games that start with X and end up with Y. A lot of games are completely inconsistent depending on what part of the game you play. TR1 was not.
I can't say, that this game is my favourite from TR series....I love Egeptyan level, but....i prefer TR4 :)!
IMO I think it is a great TR game, but the 4th best series next to TR3, TR4 & AOD! :) Everyone loves Tomb Raider I because without the game there would have never been any Tomb Raider. ;) Tomb Raider I IMO really deserves an award for one of the best adventure games of all time. :tmb:
TR3 suffered from much the same problems but to an even higher degrees. Those bad elements were expanded upon, to the point where Lara was using bazookas (would it ever make sense to use bazookas while tomb raiding), was running around within a high security compound in Nevada (how more non-tombish can you get?) surrounded by loads of NPCs (bye bye isolation). It wasn't about Tomb Raider anymore; these were the Adventures of Lara.
Those are my thoughts exactly on TR3, it kinda ruined the series because too much "goons", too much weapon/combat oriented and few "isolated" places / tombs. It is interesting that you say "these where the Adventures of Lara", because the game is named like that. :D
I have anything against using vehicles, but it must be kept to a minimal extent if not it will ruin the experience.
MaNa Shuffle
16-06-08, 18:45
TR is good for the first game ♥
Although TR wont work on my 2nd PC, and I only owned a copy for the ps1 (BAD BAD!)
Although...TR3 is my fave...And the 1st TR I ever played.
REALtombRAIDER
16-06-08, 18:49
TRA is the best game!:D
frodrigues
16-06-08, 19:31
APart from nostalgia and everything the game meant, it is not my favorite Tomb Raider. I don't like being under tombs and only fighiting some enemies here and there all the time.
abdul wahab
29-06-08, 16:36
I like Legend and
Upcoming
Underworld Unleashed:)
Crimson Tears
29-06-08, 17:10
TR1 is one of the best, but not the most. But its really good :)
Well...
TR4 is my most favorite, the hard levels and puzzles. Lots of kills and intresting plot.
TRAOD is really good, I loved the plot and the controls arent as bad as everyone thought it would be.
TR5 was amazing, it tells us more about Lara's life, and if she really died in the fourth game.
TR1 is great, it reminds me of TR4, so I bought it not only for me and sis to play, it reminds me of TR4 which I lost the game *sob*
TR3 was annoying, no offence, but there are hard parts in the game that I need to save on in order to be careful not to die or anything. And I never finished it because of Doctor Willard.
The only reason you like Core's TRs is the nostalgic feeling and spooky environment. I don't get how you like pull the switch here and run there to pull another switch. It's just stupid. I liked CD's puzzles in legend and anniversary, and really, guys stop bashing CD and defending Core.
I don't get how you like pull the switch here and run there to pull another switch. It's just stupid.
That only really happens in Chronicles and, to a lesser extent, AOD. In the original and the immediate three sequels, the puzzles are far more complex and challenging than you describe. Puzzles in Legend tend to be logical but easy. I don't think I've ever gotten stuck while playing Legend, which is a testament to how basic the puzzles are.
Eddie Haskell
30-06-08, 13:50
It is proving out as I predicted. A few years ago the shovel was thrust into the ground. Then over the past couple of years the hole was dug down to 6'. After Anniversary the coffin has been placed into the hole. Now all that's left for them to accomplish is to fill in the dirt and leave the unmarked grave. It's sad really.
It is proving out as I predicted. A few years ago the shovel was thrust into the ground.
How unspecific of you.
And yet.....
Then over the past couple of years the hole was dug down to 6'. After Anniversary the coffin has been placed into the hole. Now all that's left for them to accomplish is to fill in the dirt and leave the unmarked grave. It's sad really.
Eddie Haskell
30-06-08, 14:18
How unspecific of you.
And yet.....
It doesn't take a physics professor to understand it...or perhaps it does...;)
Hey, might not be a physics professor but I had my share of physics. :p
"A few years ago" is a lot less specific then "over the past couple of years" or "after Anniversary" wouldn't you agree? :)
Eddie Haskell
30-06-08, 18:19
Hey, might not be a physics professor but I had my share of physics. :p
"A few years ago" is a lot less specific then "over the past couple of years" or "after Anniversary" wouldn't you agree? :)
I'm sure that I could have spent a while looking up the exact time/date for each event, but it wasn't necessary. Anyone who knows anything about the series should understand my metaphorical references, and the associated events thus described.
The comments made by some in this thread and in many others are all the proof needed. Never mind the fact the precedent setter, the standard on which the series was made, the storyline and all the facts and figures initially employed, etc, will soon be known as nothing but the limited tinkerings of a few ancient programmers and artists who "got it wrong" or "set the table" until CD came along to "get it right", from the storyline to the graphics.
I'm sure that I could have spent a while looking up the exact time/date for each event, but it wasn't necessary. Anyone who knows anything about the series should understand my metaphorical references, and the associated events thus described.
The comments made by some in this thread and in many others are all the proof needed. Never mind the fact the precedent setter, the standard on which the series was made, the storyline and all the facts and figures initially employed, etc, will soon be known as nothing but the limited tinkerings of a few ancient programmers and artists who "got it wrong" or "set the table" until CD came along to "get it right", from the storyline to the graphics.
That's just it, you are not being very fair. And I don't understand your quotes. As if everyone out there thought ill of the past TR games and praised the new ones as something out of this world. And you are making a very clear threshold by mentioning CD. A very unfair threshold, specially considering, you say "from storyline to the graphics". Your coffin metaphor lacked proportionality. The hole had been dug a long time before CD came along. Speaking from a "TR1 was it" standpoint anyway.
Eddie Haskell
30-06-08, 19:52
That's just it, you are not being very fair. And I don't understand your quotes. As if everyone out there thought hill of the past TR games and praised the new ones as something out of this world. And you are making a very clear threshold by mentioning CD. A very unfair threshold, specially considering, you say "from storyline to the graphics". Your coffin metaphor lacked proportionality. The hole had been dug a long time before CD came along. Speaking from a "TR1 was it" standpoint anyway.
You do not understand. You are looking in the wrong hole...;)
You do not understand. You are looking in the wrong hole...;)
Oh, so it's the - Core's games "got it right", "set the table" until CD came along and "got it wrong", from the storyline to the graphics - hole, then :p
Or is it the "(TR3,) Chronicles and Angel of Darkness...er... never happened", hole?:p
Eddie Haskell
30-06-08, 21:24
Oh, so it's the - Core's games "got it right", "set the table" until CD came along and "got it wrong", from the storyline to the graphics - hole, then :p
Or is it the "(TR3,) Chronicles and Angel of Darkness...er... never happened", hole?:p
Neither.
It has nothing to do with quality (or lack thereof) and nothing to do with CORE. It's much, much deeper than that. I will try and explain it as simply as possible (all of this is speculation on my part based on my observations of the events):
It was CD's contention from the moment they took over production to make it their own in every way, particularly because EIDOS hired them to get as far away from CORE's last game as they could and still retain the persona of Lara as a gaming icon. I am certain that they considered the effect this might have on the existing fan base and probably concluded that a large percentage would follow Lara regardless of the changes, the majority would grudgingly accept the changes while (sometimes loudly) bemoaning them, and a very small percentage would refuse to accept these changes. I believe that they felt that it was in the best interest of themselves as the new Tomb Raider creators to leave the old Lara behind (and any non accepting fans) and reach out to the multitude of gamers out there who may not have considered the old games for a variety of reasons.
Remember that EIDOS initially had CORE creating a remake of TR1 for distribution. However, if CORE had been allowed to bring this game to fruition, than the altered storyline that was in the works for the CD games would have been damaged. So I believe that EIDOS dumped the CORE game and gave it to CD to do in order to present a complete CD version of Lara, conceivably (to all of the new fans) from the get-go. Perhaps CD presented EIDOS with this scenario, I don't know. But I do know (as it is undeniable) that the result is the hijack (dramatic altering) of the character and her life, history and exploits so that it fit into CD's new interpretation of the game.
Was all of this necessary? I don't think so. What is the result of this, now and tomorrow? Many new players will play Anniversary and believe that this was the original story, justly revisited. Certainly the players who come in here know better (at least most of them), but Joe Gamer will assume that CD's version of Lara is simply a progression of the all the games. Will they play the original game? No. A select few who visit here do, and perhaps a minuscule number elsewhere might but the game and all that is was will fade into memory, and if it is remembered will more than likely be wrongly remembered as just like Anniversary. Than CD will have succeeded in erasing the old persona and completely claiming the character and game as their own.
Now before you pounce I am not calling CD evil or at all. They did what they felt was necessary. They had an idea to create a deeper, highly motivated and supremely detailed character that in their opinion seemed absent from the other older games. My only real complaint on this is the fact that they felt the need to include Anniversary in this. A real tribute would have been to create a game true to the original; one with updated graphics, the same story through and through, etc. Instead they saw it as the perfect opportunity to hijack a great game and make it their own. And quite possibly bury it forever from the minds of future gamers.
AmericanAssassin
30-06-08, 21:49
Now before you pounce I am not calling CD evil or at all. They did what they felt was necessary. They had an idea to create a deeper, highly motivated and supremely detailed character that in their opinion seemed absent from the other older games. My only real complaint on this is the fact that they felt the need to include Anniversary in this. A real tribute would have been to create a game true to the original; one with updated graphics, the same story through and through, etc. Instead they saw it as the perfect opportunity to hijack a great game and make it their own. And quite possibly bury it forever from the minds of future gamers.
For the most part, I agree with you. I wish they would have stayed a tad more true to the original. It is the best game ever made, IMO, and I always feel that CD screwed it over. They turned an epic adventure game into a linear, childish game. :(
Mmm personally I think it's my favourite TR, but I'm kinda in a tie between TR1 & TR4. Can't decide for good between one or another. :)
If CD gan make the game as challenging as the original games ( white ledges, anyone? ) and retaining the good TR features such as atmospheric levels, level complexity and good puzzles and exploration, it could become my favourite TR game, as I love very much TRL and TRA, and the only reason I'm not loving TRL more than the classics is the fact that it's too easy because it lacks complexity ( again white ledges....:p )
It was CD's contention from the moment they took over production to make it their own in every way, particularly because EIDOS hired them to get as far away from CORE's last game as they could and still retain the persona of Lara as a gaming icon. I am certain that they considered the effect this might have on the existing fan base and probably concluded that a large percentage would follow Lara regardless of the changes, the majority would grudgingly accept the changes while (sometimes loudly) bemoaning them, and a very small percentage would refuse to accept these changes. I believe that they felt that it was in the best interest of themselves as the new Tomb Raider creators to leave the old Lara behind (and any non accepting fans) and reach out to the multitude of gamers out there who may not have considered the old games for a variety of reasons.
Remember that EIDOS initially had CORE creating a remake of TR1 for distribution. However, if CORE had been allowed to bring this game to fruition, than the altered storyline that was in the works for the CD games would have been damaged. So I believe that EIDOS dumped the CORE game and gave it to CD to do in order to present a complete CD version of Lara, conceivably (to all of the new fans) from the get-go. Perhaps CD presented EIDOS with this scenario, I don't know. But I do know (as it is undeniable) that the result is the hijack (dramatic altering) of the character and her life, history and exploits so that it fit into CD's new interpretation of the game.
Was all of this necessary? I don't think so. What is the result of this, now and tomorrow? Many new players will play Anniversary and believe that this was the original story, justly revisited. Certainly the players who come in here know better (at least most of them), but Joe Gamer will assume that CD's version of Lara is simply a progression of the all the games. Will they play the original game? No. A select few who visit here do, and perhaps a minuscule number elsewhere might but the game and all that is was will fade into memory, and if it is remembered will more than likely be wrongly remembered as just like Anniversary. Than CD will have succeeded in erasing the old persona and completely claiming the character and game as their own.
Now before you pounce I am not calling CD evil or at all. They did what they felt was necessary. They had an idea to create a deeper, highly motivated and supremely detailed character that in their opinion seemed absent from the other older games. My only real complaint on this is the fact that they felt the need to include Anniversary in this. A real tribute would have been to create a game true to the original; one with updated graphics, the same story through and through, etc. Instead they saw it as the perfect opportunity to hijack a great game and make it their own. And quite possibly bury it forever from the minds of future gamers.
I think you are assuming too much concerning what were CD's or Eidos' intentions.
I thought TRAE was Core's attempt at getting Eidos to understand they were still a viable developer for the franchise. You are saying Eidos had Core a TR1 remake, but weren't Core no longer Eidos' employees after AOD?
I don't see and never saw TRA as a tribute to the original per se. I saw it as the link between past and present and a way to show the fans what was going to be retained in terms of storyline. Because if Legend made anything perfectly clear, is that CD wants to make their own Lara. That much is agreeable. And understandable in my opinion. And actually I can't agree that TRA somehow piggybacked onto TR1's good story parts seeing as most of them are missing in the remake (in my opinion).
I don't believe you can rewrite the past. Whatever TRA Lara is to new gamers, is something that would never be changed by playing an older game. They "fell in love" with CDs Lara and are interested in the current Lara. So from a "future players" standpoint, I don't think there really is a problem. They might not know the Lara from TR1, but then again they will also probably not learn of how subsequent Core games had her persona change quite a bit themselves. This idea that Core had a very well laid idea of Lara's and Lara world and history's boundaries is something I can not understand at all.
If the problem is paying respect to the series' roots, I think some of Core's games were just as a big a disservice as CD's games are.
I love TR1 to bits, but I can't expect 10 year olds to like such a long running series for what it was, in terms of the protagonist. Specially considering I would never try to convince someone else to play a TR game by saying Lara is a great character.
Still "Anniversary" is too obvious a title to misinterpret and everyone knows long running series had to start with a bang somehow.
For the most part, I agree with you. I wish they would have stayed a tad more true to the original. It is the best game ever made, IMO, and I always feel that CD screwed it over. They turned an epic adventure game into a linear, childish game. :(
They didn't turn it into anything. A remake can't kill the joy you had when you played the original, or can it? Not with me. A remake can't make a previous game bad in any sense.
There's something sublime about TR1. It works on so many levels and then collectively the whole is most definitely greater than the sum of the parts (which are already very very good themselves).
Firstly, it gets the mood RIGHT.
We're dealing with lost and forbidden places. Places you don't run into everyday, places where fabulous technology and exquisitely precious things are left.
It's going to be empty, lonely, quiet (no jangly background music - but echo-ing footsteps one after the other) as you WALK through mysterious settings. Surreal settings that are almost familar but slightly not. Like huge Sphinxes buried deep in enclosed caverns, and the colosseum buried underground too.
I know this was partly the result of technological limitations - but it works and CD should take note of that when they're designing their levels. It's these contradictions against expectations that add an extra element (shivers) of awe, that make you feel like something strange, something BIGGER THAN YOURSELF (and bigger than the average game) is going on here. You feel like an explorer.
Secondly, it gets the level design right.
There is NO OTHER game that encourages you to... just look around that next corner... beyond that next door... over the top of that ledge... through that gate... in that pool... behind that bolder... as much as TR1. You can't put it down when you first play it. You HAVE to just see a little bit more. Because it rewards you perfectly. It's worth checking out the little cracks and corners because there might be something useful there, or it may actually be the way to get onto the next bit, it may open up a whole new area to explore. There are explorations within explorations to do and you have all the right tools (Lara's abilities - with precision control) to get through it.
And none of it was predictable. It was always satisfying to discover, "Oh, so THAT'S what's behind that..."
Third (for me), the control system combined with interactivity available in TR1 encourages a level of immersion and feeling of being inside the game that I don't feel with the CD one's. I'm not saying that we need to revert back to the old control system, but I think interactivity needs to be restored to the game's original levels. With the new games, they're selling Lara Croft's story, but before we (I) had my own adventure to play out. I prefer the old way.
They seemingly want to make interactive FILMS to play out, I want an interactive WORLD to play in. This is why I think that CD have actually taken a backwards step in designing TR games.
I never felt awed in Legend. It's a fun game, a good (non-TR) game, but it is seriously not in TR1's league. It had no emotional impact on me beyond the cutscenes. The actual GAMEPLAY gave me very little emotional resonance. Because of the way the gameplay works, I quickly learnt it wasn't necessary to feel scared, apprehensive or nervous, and the actual level design and general design of structures, etc never left me feeling awed or amazed. This is so contrary to how I felt when I first played TR1 that I despaired about how TR was going to turn out under CD (I'm slighly more hopeful for TR:U, but we'll see). I was literally fearful to turn around a corner my first time through TR1. I'd step into an area and be literally amazed at my surroundings... so perfectly, evocative of mystery and power with an edge of danger always hinted at. They NEED to recapture those things.
Anyway, I could go on and on about TR1, but I won't. :D
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.