View Full Version : TR1 vs Anniversary
New here. Just curious on how everyone would compare the two. I thought it was a good revamp but I have a friend who didn't like it at all.
January_Snow*
13-07-09, 12:00
Hated it, in my oppinion partial fail as a remake, a complete fail as a game...TR1 Lara is magnetic, cool, very appealing...Anny Lara is a boring depresed fugly migget...
I would say they're different games based on the same basic storyline... therefore how they unfold is different. TR1 is classic Lara, no doubt about it, but I liked Anniversary. The only problems I had were that where they cut bits out of both The Cistern and Atlantis.
Palace Midas
13-07-09, 12:14
TR1 will allways be my favorite TR game but TRA is still great in my opinion. It's sad that some sections where cut out or changed but as a Crystal Dynamics game, TRA is the closest thing to a 'real' TR game from Core. I love this game! :)
TR1 had probably the most 'jumpy to jumpy' bits which I loved, coupled with the animation and controllability of Lara. As the series progressed these bits just got fewer and fewer (TR4 being a low in the classics). Now the 'jumpy' bits are cut and pasted on. Anniversary was a half decent effort done in POP/Indy disguise with set pieces made into cut-scenes and cut levels.
It was a different game altogether. I think if Anniversary was made back in 1996 with PS graphics we would not be on this forum talking about Tomb Raider.
Another thing is the mood. TR1 was colourful. Anniversary, in trying to make Tombs etc 'realistic' ended making them look drab and grey. TR1 inspired imagination.
I think if Anniversary was made back in 1996 with PS graphics we would not be on this forum talking about Tomb Raider.
*nods* IMO TRA is nothing except graphics in comparison with TR1. The feel and grip was lost.
TR story and Annis are different
TR story and Annis are different
Now that bothered me. Ever since the beginning of TR there have been differing views on Lara's past. I wish we could have some sort of concenus.
I would say they're different games based on the same basic storyline... therefore how they unfold is different. TR1 is classic Lara, no doubt about it, but I liked Anniversary. The only problems I had were that where they cut bits out of both The Cistern and Atlantis.
Same here. I loved TRA, save for those details. Otherwise, it's a great rendition.
stereopathic
13-07-09, 13:30
i love anniversary and thought it was a really fun game. i don't consider it a true remake, more of an interpretation, but it did improve upon the original TR in some areas. St. Francis' Folly was incredible, for instance, and i love that they tidied up the historical content to make it more accurate (poseidon instead of neptune, hephaestus instead of thor).
the voice acting is immeasurably better and some elements of the story were much-needed improvements.
all that said, the game lost its appeal in the way puzzles were presented and the way it eschewed exploration. palace midas, the TR series' finest moment imo, was just a diluted & dumbed-down shadow of the TR1 version. a lot of the freedom of the original was lost. there's a thread around here about running past the T-Rex in TR1 and getting up on the bridge to shoot him from there. in anniversary, you are forced to fight it on the developers' terms and that's such a disappointment. and while atlantis looked cool, it wasn't the horrifying environment that TR1's original vision was.
so while i liked anni a lot (in and of itself), i thought it fell far short in what it was supposed to accomplish, which was to seamlessly integrate the gameplay of TR1 with the improved combat & graphics of legend.
Super Badnik
13-07-09, 13:34
I think if Anniversary was made back in 1996 with PS graphics we would not be on this forum talking about Tomb Raider.I really don't know about that. The grapple, the animations, the even bigger scale of enviroments (such as Mida's Palace) would have been amazing stuff in 1996. In fact the game got top notch scores in 2007
anniversarytr11
13-07-09, 13:45
well i hated the killing of the classic atmosphere, the repetitive ledge hopping and pole swinging, the remake didn't do the original any justice in my opinion, i though core's version looked much more promissing.
I think there are places that were better in the original and places that were better in Anni..
for example: I liked St.Francis Folly is way better and harder in anniversary than in the original , the same with the colissuem but as for Tomb Of Tihocan it was butchered and I liked the original better, Obliesk Of Khamoon is a lot harder in anni than in the original, the same with Natal's Mines
but the last two levels in anni were rubbish compared to the original ones. and I would've like the lost valley better in anni if it wasnt for making the T-rex a boss.. I liked the tension of running around with t-rex on my back in the original.
I don't really like Anniversary much, to be honest. It wouldn't seem so bad if it wasn't a remake of TR1, but Crystal somehow managed to mess up just about every level, bar St. Francis' Folly.
The graphics were more advanced sure, but I honestly don't think the game was any better for it. I have my doubts about how much better the graphics really were, anyway. Sure they were more advanced, but does that really reflect the overall quality? I suppose it all comes down to what you consider to be good graphics. If you're just talking about smoother, more realistic textures, then sure, Anniversary has much better graphics than TR1. However, if you extend the definition to colour scheme and smaller details, I'd say TR1 has the edge. Core made such good use of the resources they had to create levels that actually looked nice, whereas Crystal just didn't seem to care.
Some of TRA's levels aren't much good anyway, whether you judge them by TR1's standards or just look at them on their own. Coliseum, Obelisk of Khamoon and The Great Pyramid are all terrible levels, in my opinion, and that wouldn't be any different if they were part of TR1 rather than TRA (techically, they are part of TR1, but I'm sure you know what I mean). Coliseum and The Great Pyramid are really short with hardly anything to do, and Obelisk of Khamoon is just too bloody frustrating.
AlexStark7
13-07-09, 16:10
I think we don't even need to compare them. I liked tr1 a lot, my first tr ever, and from CD, Anniversary is far the best they have. Stop comparing the games, I just see them all as differents parts of my favorite game. They COULD be different, that's right, but i don't care, they are like this and i like them both :wve:
I really don't know about that. The grapple, the animations, the even bigger scale of enviroments (such as Mida's Palace) would have been amazing stuff in 1996. In fact the game got top notch scores in 2007
Exactly what was in Indiana jones and the Emperors Tomb a PS game, the grapple was a whip instead and non fixed camera (indy faces the sceen when you press down). You can even shoot when holding ledges (like Underworld). Hardly new and using more or less the same gameplay as CD...and its a PS game, an old one. Not the most memorable game ever was it?
rgD8fERAm1U
AlexStark7
13-07-09, 16:27
O.o
I want that game xD
Seems to be cool *-*
*nods* IMO TRA is nothing except graphics in comparison with TR1. The feel and grip was lost.
Agreed
SoulReaver74
13-07-09, 17:00
The simple fact is, all Anniversary has got going for it is great graphics and maybe the Folly, but put those aside and it's not even in the same league as the original, level design alone is enough to make TR1 untouchable in my opinion, the memories i have of playing this masterpiece far exceed anything Ani offered, dont get me wrong it has it's moments, like the Folly for example, with an incredible platform set by Core how could the boys at Crystal go wrong, but unfortunately this level exempt,the rest of the game didn't fare so well, should have left it well alone and continue the story on from Legend, then maybe we could have had a sequal to Legend worth talking about. :p
nah i hate anniversary too. i mean ive played it and i play it now when im bored and its well made but it has rullen TR1 completelly.
Lets see, i prefer the original because i dont like the new controls, for the rest is the same game whit just better grafics and some different puzzles, made because of the new possibilities of the game engine. But we all are ingrats, if Anniversary was the first game of the series ( forget about all the others, as we didnt know Lara ) everyone was seeing that he is genious. We have to much greats expectactions for a new Lara Game but we are unffair...
darkangel08
13-07-09, 22:41
I think the gameplay in TRA was stale - it seemed to be jumping from ledge to ledge most of the time. Most levels seemed a lot shorter than the original - I hated the Great Pyramid level in Anni (which was Atlantis in TR1 - my favourite level) it was all grapple and poles in the remake. Like most people, I didn't like the T-Rex as a boss in TRA because in the original it just appeared from nowhere during gameplay (not a cutscene) - it was scary but great! Oh, and I don't like the "interactive cutscenes" - I found them way too easy compared to those in RE4 which, unlike Anni, were very quick and completely unexpected.
I think the story (in most places) was much better than the original's. I like TRA's fantasy element more than TR1's sci-fi - it worked better. The dialogue - although witty in the original - seemed more intellectual in Anni and Natla was more menacing in it (propably because she looked like Paris Hilton - scary!) But video games are not about "good stories" in my eyes (that's for the movies and if fleshed out more it could have made a good movie what with all the character development). They focused way too much on story than on gameplay. And that is a big mistake when making a game! All in all TR1 will always be the better game.
I love both..I've never actually played TR1 but I've seen walkthroughs from the mansion to Natla
TR1 looks way more fun and challening, doesn't mean that TRA is a bad game though, even if it's supposed to be a remake it's quite different, the story's also different, but I prefer the TRA one anyway...
TL;DR: I like both
The original Tomb Raider will always be the greatest. I had some fun with Anniversary, and moments of nostalgia was nice, but it never had a chance to even compare to TR1 for me. :)
But there is one thing i hated in boot... Check points, i just hate check points, and in anni it was worst, you have a big trouble doing some jumps ad when you tink you gonna can save your game heres come another hard move and you must make it all again:hea:
PoseidonsDeath
14-07-09, 04:58
TR1 is ALOT better than Anniversary. Though I did LOVE Anniversary.
Exactly what was in Indiana jones and the Emperors Tomb a PS game, the grapple was a whip instead and non fixed camera (indy faces the sceen when you press down). You can even shoot when holding ledges (like Underworld). Hardly new and using more or less the same gameplay as CD...and its a PS game, an old one. Not the most memorable game ever was it?
rgD8fERAm1U
ROFL! thats a PS2 game. not a PS1 game.
PoseidonsDeath
14-07-09, 06:14
Looks Like PC to me... "Hold C key to look around"
yeah lol, it was released on PS2, PC and Xbox. I was just sayin PS2 because it was play station, and they thought it was PS1 lol :D
JDSmith260792
14-07-09, 12:05
I loved both of course.... :D :D
Why comparing? I enjoyed both games separately and I loved both of them.
Because anniversary is TR1 redone. I like both too. But I have a friend that keeps complaining. "Why did they change this? Why did they change that?" Its very annoying. So I wanted to know if her views were echoed by anyone else.
yeah lol, it was released on PS2, PC and Xbox. I was just sayin PS2 because it was play station, and they thought it was PS1 lol :D
Yep, sorry meant PS2.
I did have the game, the graphics and indy animations were probably worse than TR on the PS (the vid is a PC version). My point was the gameplay, grapple (whip), avatar animations and controls are similar to Anniversary, and its an old game.
It was a good game, but it wasn't Tomb Raider...........feel the same about Anniversary.
Lara Croft!
14-07-09, 17:23
And since we are talking about graphics, here are some comparisons I made....
Click on the thumbnails for a bigger view.
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_10b.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/10b.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_10a.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/10a.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_9b.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/9b.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_9a.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/9a.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_8b.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/8b.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_8a.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/8a.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_7b.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/7b.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_7a.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/7a.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_6b.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/6b.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_6a.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/6a.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_5b.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/5b.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_5a.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/5a.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_4b.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/4b.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_4a.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/4a.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_3b.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/3b.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_3a.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/3a.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_2b.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/2b.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_2a.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/2a.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_1b.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/1b.jpg)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/th_1a.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/Lora160687/LARA%20CROFT/1a.jpg)
TRA carried Crystal's "ideals" regarding game design which are vastly different than those of Core's even when someone considers the time that both games were made.Therefore i wasn't surprised to see that many levels of the original didn't made it into TRA.
I see TRA more like a "what if" kind of game than an actual remake,a completely different take concerning level design,controls,visual style and story/characters.Because i've seen it as that,i somewhat enjoyed it.
But even when judging TRA by itself,i have to say that the game suffered from a God awful camera (especially during wall-runs) and from the excessive use of gimmicks like the adrenaline dodge which was also "forced" upon the player.In the later's case i had to read a Gamefaqs tutorial explaining how to perform the move properly because the in-game tutorial sucked IMO.The moment that i had to stop the game and go to the internet to find explanations about a crucial game mechanic was the moment that the game's designer failed terribly in my eyes.
I would say that TRA was somewhat interesting as a "what if" project,but judging it by itself it was just an average game.TR1 on the other hand was one of the most important games in video game history.
Yep, sorry meant PS2.
I did have the game, the graphics and indy animations were probably worse than TR on the PS (the vid is a PC version). My point was the gameplay, grapple (whip), avatar animations and controls are similar to Anniversary, and its an old game.
It was a good game, but it wasn't Tomb Raider...........feel the same about Anniversary.
ahh, ok :D
I remember playing that game. I liked it at the time, because I was a little younger. I remember I could never get past that giant octopus :(
pizzabob18
15-07-09, 16:23
TR1, by a long shot.
I reviewed Anniversary a few years ago and gave it a rather high review of a 9/10, (although I still thought TR1 was better). Maybe it's because of Underworld, but TRA just seems so repetitive and butchered to me nowadays. It's not a "re imagined game", it's a "highlighted rooms from the original connected by corridors game".
There are exceptions though. Besides some nicely done tidbits in the game detail wise, the non-valley part of Lost Valley is amazing, the St.Francis' Folly and, to a lesser extent, Sanctuary of Scion are better than the originals, and Egypt in general is mostly a faithful remake.
However, every other level is butchered, and Greece, which was my favorite chapter in the classic is just not the same. The mash up of cistern/TOT is a downer to me. Even the impressive and fancier look of the cistern's ceiling cannot save it from the fact that its glorious side rooms are gone (not to mention nearly all of TOT) ,and the mighty Palace Midas is just the 3 trial rooms connected to a mishmash room that combines the important elements of the original level. (Their joke of an aqueduct is vomit worthy compared to the original). ---ok, maybe that's a little too harsh, but it is rather disappointing.
However, what is vulgar and insulting is the Atlantis Chapter. Just like Underworld, the most important location at the end is too short and is more of a tunnel runthrough. Natla's mines, is almost completely original in the middle part as it is so drastically different (which isn't too bad, but the boss "battles" and truncated pyramid area kill the level's plus points). And the last two levels are neutered and sickeningly shortened samples of the amazing original levels.
I now definitely have mixed feelings toward TRA, it contains some great bits, some great moments of nostalgia and great graphics, but it is so butchered and short that it can't hold a candle to the 1996 original.
VampiraJen
16-07-09, 08:14
I liked Anniversary, in fact I'm replaying it right now. I enjoy it, though it does have a mone linear feel to it and you never really feel lost like you did in the original, nor do I ever feel that encouraged you explore or stray away from where I'm suppose to go.
Having said that, I think there are still a lot of great moments in the game. I think graphically, the game looks amazing, and I think they did a really good job of modernizing it but staying true to the feel of the original. They gave the story a lot more emotional weight to it. I know a lot of people are miffed about the change of backstory, but it doesn't bother me at all, I just think of it as a seperate continuity, and I think that it's also a pretty cool idea that although there are two Lara's and two continuites, they cross over at one point in time and go on the same/very similar adventure.
Cutting down some of the stuff in the Cistren/Tomb of Tihocan was a shame, sure, but I get why they did it. Let's face it, the Greece section is not only overly long in terms of the number of levels, it also contains some of the longest individual levels, so it didn't bother me. And that's coming from someone who considers the Cistren to be their favourite level from the original.
I think this was a great oppertunity for Crystal Dynamics to get a feel of what made a great Tomb Raider game, and if you look at their two original TR games, Underworld (despite the glitches) come across a lot better because it's a lot closer to classic Tomb Raider than Legend was.
Still, the original will always be the better for me because I had ten years of love and nostalga built up by the time Anniversary came along, but I think it does what any good remake/re-immagining should do: it stays true to the spirit of the original and at the same time adds to it.
TRA was an EPIC fail. It was a terrible game full of white ledges doing the same move over and over, and by far a worse remake since 75% of TR1 was missing or replaced by their beloved ledges.
I'd score TRA 2/10 as a game. -10/10 as a remake.
dexter void
16-07-09, 12:52
I was a bit disappointed to be honest about the decision to create a remake as nothing could capture the emotions I felt when playing the original. With saying that I think they did a good job of remake with the way it looks and everything but I just couldn't see the point of it!
Well, we must understand that not everyone could play the original in 1996, many person were to young or even not born at all, and to seduce new players that were new to the series ut wanted to know the origins of Lara they could not release a game with that old graphics that the original have...
So, we, olds Lara lovers, must understand that anniversary dont was made for us but for the new generation...
I'd score TRA 2/10 as a game. -10/10 as a remake.
I hope you got that mixed up. :p
xXhayleyroxXx
16-07-09, 15:14
i love both of them XD
rr_carroll
16-07-09, 15:49
You have to go to some effort to install the original in modern windows, I guess that was another reason for a remake.
Just curious,have you played TRA rr_carroll?:)
rr_carroll
16-07-09, 16:25
I bought it, but I didn't get out of the mansion - I was really annoyed by the movement/camera system. Didn't play Legend either. I intend to go back someday, but the amazing depth of the classics has me happily trapped. After years, I'm still finding new stuff! And new types of stuff - then I "have" to play through the game(s) again to see where they work.
I was well into AOD, so I'll probably do that first.
I see.:)
I'm not into pc gaming myself but i was curious if the control system of Crystal's games let's someone to explore glitches and bugs as much as the classics did.
I love them both. Anniverasry was a worthy remake. (reimagining as they called it)
Yes there were a few VERY disappointing levels like Colosseum, City of Vilcabamba and the Lost Island levels, but the overal game was great. Compared to Legend and Underworld, TRA was the closest Crystal have been to making a TR in the same vein as the originals.
Egypt I loved as they were all long levels that followed the originals very well. As said already, St. Francis' Folly is an amazing level that manages to keep everything from the original but improve almost every aspect of it.
It's just a shame that huge chunks from the original game were cut. Things like the side rooms in the high room of Atlantis. Most of the Cistern and practically all of the Tomb of Tihocan were missed.
Palace Midas I really enjoyed but it's a bit crap that the level wasn't as intricately designed as the original with over-branching pathways. The fact that we see the statue of Midas at the start of the level was crap also.
Still, based on modern gaming trends, I'd give TRA 8/10. The original will always be better to most of us but you gotta ask yourselves how much of that is out of nostalgia?
Kitty_pi314
16-07-09, 17:19
The original brought the people in. Anniversary I thought it was ok but there was quite a few things that bugged me. The bubbly music when enemies approached, it didn't strike terror in me like the original. The original as soon the music broke the ambient sound I usually hit the roll button and high tailed it outta there. Enemies in TR had better AI imo cuz if you were higher up out of their reach they would still move around and run somewhere else...where as TRA they just stop and stare at you while you peg them off.
TRA was also lacking in the element of surprise the bear in the Lost Valley was the only thing that made me jump, everything else was just meh. The glitches and camera were just horrid in some parts where Lara won't attach to ledges. The one thing that bugged me the most was the mummies in TRA they could at least made them look you more human but nope we got over grown misbehaving kitties, half horses half birds, and flying monkeys if i had some balls of yarn, some bird seed, and some bananas I could have distracted them easily. Now the last bad thing about TRA I will say is the unlockable classic Lara she looked great but her face got slapped to much by the ugly stick the original Lara looked 10x better than that.
But at least TRA was pretty to look at. ;)
rr_carroll
16-07-09, 17:35
I see.:)
I'm not into pc gaming myself but i was curious if the control system of Crystal's games let's someone to explore glitches and bugs as much as the classics did.
There are many speedrun videos on YouTube, and a lot of them have glitches. But I've heard there is less opportunity for exploring; many side areas are just images, not explorable areas. I'm certainly no expert past TR5, however.
stereopathic
16-07-09, 17:45
There are many speedrun videos on YouTube, and a lot of them have glitches. But I've heard there is less opportunity for exploring; many side areas are just images, not explorable areas. I'm certainly no expert past TR5, however.
i've used some glitches to try to get places i wasn't supposed to be and there's just nothing there. you bump into invisible walls and you can't really stand on anything that's not a part of the intended path. i was pretty disappointed.
Overall I think TRA is better then TR1.
It can never beat the feeling I had when I first played TR1, but no game can beat that. Some locations are a big miss, like the statue of Midas out in the open or Atlantis. But most levels got a good remake.
fallenangle
16-07-09, 21:33
I've said this before here that TR: A is a great balancing act integrating old and new TR and CD should be praised for producing a game which has the casual gamer accessability of Legend but (particularly if played on Hard with auto-grab off) gives a true flavour of the original game that inspired it.
TR: A does have some superb levels which match or exceed the original. like St. Francis Folly and IMHO the whole of Egypt. But for all the good things there were some hugely dissappointing gameplay decisions and whole levels that failed, or worse, looked as though they'd just run out of original ideas. The sad thing is many of those elements that fail or bore (most of Peru) are CD's invention. Where they stuck to Core's TR1 design TR: A looks and usually plays well.
I'd like to commend CD's use of the grapple though. Camera issues aside
(and that hateful Great Pyramid section) it is a worthy TR addition. I am a great fan of the under-rated (XBox version) Indiana Jones & The Emperor's Tomb where his whip is used in a very similar way. I remember wishing at the time that Lara would be given a similar tool but being disappointed by it's limited application in Legend.
TR1 for me is a classic piece of gaming history and is especially important to me. I'll always be going back to it. But TR: A is, at its best, a very good game and I'll hope to be re-playing it for years to come too.
silver_wolf
17-07-09, 01:50
TR1 is actually quite easy. But so is TRA.
I'll always pick TR1, though.
I am a great fan of the under-rated (XBox version) Indiana Jones & The Emperor's Tomb where his whip is used in a very similar way.
woot! :tmb:
Everything being equal I have recently remembered something I always said about TR1 and after some thought I beleive that it still applies. "The first is always the best."
I'm kinda glad noone compared Peruvian levels between both versions to quote the lack of vibrant colors in TRA... See, that's called accuracy, wich made my heart a little more happier while playing the "remake". Playing it never felt like i was playing TR1 with improved graphics, but my very intention wasn't to replay TR1 with better graphics, so my intentionality towards the game saved me from nonsense. After Legend, it was a little tombraiderish i needed to have, and i really enjoyed it as far as i could (i became nuts trying to get every single achievement until i got them all), wich kinda makes me draw the features this game has. Those who were planning to play a copy of TR1 in Next Gen were disappointed, and i think that they deserve to feel that way, cause it's mainly because they couldn't leave the literality of the word "remake", so they saw useless the replay feature, unlockables, etc... Those who made a 100% completition know what i'm talking about.
fallenangle
25-07-09, 18:42
I think I understand much of what you're saying ^ but the problem with the TR:A Peruvian levels was not their lack of colour - that is true to the original. It is their modern off the shelf darkness, dankness and claustraphobic atmosphere that was wrong and not true to original at all.
The first two levels of the original look and feel far more open, far brighter, cleaner (more Incan?) and manage a true sense of epic scale despite the shorter draw distance.
The art design of these levels in TR: A may be more realistic having far more detail and sophisticated lighting but more isn't necessarily better. In the original I'm somewhere mysterious and interesting made more so by the basic lighting and perhaps even those shorter draw distances.. It stimulates the imagination, the TR: A version just doesn't. It is all laid out for you.
I've grown sick of the whole process of trying to install/run TR1 so I'm almost exclusively playing Anniversary.
The only things I hated really were the fact they completely ruined The Citern, Tomb of Tihocan, Great Pyramid ond Final Conflict. And that Atlantis did not remotely resemble the TR1 Atlantis (considering that Atlantis in TR1 is entirely fictional), aisde from that, they did good with TRA.
TR1 ftw. tra is just not my thing. If there was Core's TRAE then I think I'd like them both (Core's games)
(...)TR:A Peruvian levels was not their lack of colour - that is true to the original. It is their modern off the shelf darkness, dankness and claustraphobic atmosphere that was wrong and not true to original at all.(...)
I loved the claustrophobia :D. It's true that wasn't true to the original, but is a little more true to the culture the levels represent, prehispanic tombs are nothing but temples or palaces that after the priest or governor died where sealed as tombs and worshipped.
(...)The art design of these levels in TR: A may be more realistic having far more detail and sophisticated lighting but more isn't necessarily better.(...)
I agree. Even when the accuracy of the detail was slightly better, the in-game experience got a bit ripped, but it tried to stick as close as possible to the TR1 experience... However, we must realize that this isn't a TR1, but an entire different game... better... worse... that's really up to the player.
fallenangle
26-07-09, 12:01
But don't you think that the claustraphobic, hemmed in feel makes the whole game seem smaller and less epic scale in those areas? There's a whole difference in perspective thing going on too. Maybe that's due to the camera angle of view and those draw distances but in TR: A Lara seems bigger in comparison to the environments than in the original.
I think it makes a lot of difference to the atmosphere especially in those first two Peruvian levels of TR: A. Only when you get to the impressive looking opening area of the Lost Valley does that important sense of intimidating scale, present throughout the original game, actually start to appear.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.