IGN - Something seems oddly familiar about the new Tomb Raider. We dig into our treasure chest of beloved classic games to find out if Tomb Raider really is for you.
Crystal Dynamics' daring reboot of Tomb Raider brought Lara Croft back into the spotlight.
An attempt at a reboot with no momentum for continuance. Just a torture-porn trilogy about a poor rich girl with daddy issues reluctantly being pulling into a world of violence, versus say the adventures of a quipping Brit treasure hunter who solves ancient puzzles while gunning down rare and extinct animals that it originally was?
Honestly, don't have all that killing. If the devs had been truly clever, not focused on mangling a message about the senselessness of killing which was seemingly and quickly forgotten, they could have worked, if not bloodlessly then not directly by Laura's hand, dealing with enemies as part of the puzzle solving - they didn't have in the game in the first place...
"Revived a '90s Gaming Icon"
LOL
the only thing similar between the 2 is the name of the protagonist. if they would have given the game a different name, NONE would even think that it was somehow a resurrected Tomb Raider IP. the last game with the real Tomb Raider DNA was TR Underworld.
The Survivor Trilogy was a drastic reimagining of Lara Croft and Tomb Raider, and it provokes changes for the character that are truly fantastic.
Deserves less IMO, i think the 1st in the new trilogy was a perfect 1st step for the new direction. The next 2 games were half steps at best. Not only that, every character in the series including Lara is just annoying and doesn't make sense in terms of motive, like yes they have a motive, but none of it seems proportional to the lengths they are willing to go through for it. The most annoying thing is every one of the games say "become the Tomb Raider" yet 3 games later and we're still not there? No thanks. Then there's the mess of the 3rd game, massive skill tree that serves almost no purpose as there's literally only like 3-4 short encounters in the whole game, and they took till the 3rd game to finally manage some decent puzzles even remotely close to previous games in the series. Nah, the trilogy infuriated me to no end as a long time fan of the series, i hope we get better going forward cause that crap sucked.
The first in the trilogy was my favorite. I thought they were going into the right direction with that one until the second one came out and seemed like a graphical downgrade but the gameplay was okay. As for the Third, Graphics were really nice but it was kinda boring me to death with its non-stop platforming and exploring with not enough action! Well, for me anyway...
Graphics on the 3rd one were abysmal. It’s more colorful and has more variety, but everything else was a noticeable downgrade.
The more open world with NPC quests was also handled very poorly, to the point I missed Angel of Darkness.
I know it is your opinion, but she did progress as a character in each game, she even got more muscular and seasoned.
That is the thing, people first complained that there was not enough platforming and actual tomb raiding in the first and second games. Shadow remedied that and kept the combat elements.
3-4 encounters? huh? did we play the same game? there was plenty of combat and, the skill tree did matter, like being able to hang enemies from trees, set explosives traps on bodies, being able to counter, and that are just a few of the combat skills. The skill tree also had things like being able to hold your breath underwater longer, crafting upgrades, zipline upgrade, and climbing upgrades that all changed how you can approach situations.
Not knocking your opinion, but we definitely had different experiences. I had 98% completion on the shadow.
Sorry but i'm with him about the low number of encounters, the game throws loads of weapons and skills you're way with a comparatively low amount of places to actually use them, so they felt under utilised.
Yeah...no
It was awful, for THREE GAMES it was "become the Tomb Raider" where she went back to square one after each game. Not to mention after a huge reaction of killing someone for the first time she then becomes Rambo straight after and goes on a slaughter spree without a single other reaction. Her development was all over the place.
She was whiney, weak and in later game a little arrogant and selfish
Oh and the voice actress compared to the previous ones was not as good
Lara Croft deserved better and while they are decent games as they are, we deserved actual Tomb Raider games, we could have had better survival games if they just stuck with the original Lara Crofts origin about her plane going down. Surviving 2 weeks in the Himalayas...I'd have liked to seen that, who knows what mystical threat she could have faced in the mountains or underground some secret concealed cave.
I thought Shadow of the Tomb Raider had better gameplay than Rise, but it annoyed me the most of the trilogy when I stopped to think about the story.
It's like they deliberately decided to make her unlikeable and did nothing to make the character you're playing as likeable or have even one sign of humility.
2013 I thought was a fine entry, but Rise and especially Shadow were painfully mediocre follow ups imo, I really didn't like how selfish and angry her character was in those two.
First one was decent, played through it twice.
Second one was okay, played through it once.
Third one was really bad, tried twice a year apart, still can't get through the first two hours, it is just really bad.
Honest question, what did you find bad about it? the opening 2 hrs of Shadow were fantastic imo.
The opening was very similar to the first 2, what did you find really bad?
Not looking for an argument, just an honest question.
3rd one just didn't feel like a tomb raider game. Possibly because the development was passed to another development team. Big mistake! Microsoft killed tomb raider making the first game a timed exclusive. Never recovered after that.
Adam Hurd of GameGrin writes: "Gaming is an interactive medium. For decades now we’ve had people criticise the structure of narrative heavy games, for relying on cutscenes to tell the story. In films there’s a phrase: show, don’t tell, the idea that it’s better for the scene to show you what’s going on rather than the characters or text to tell you. In gaming I feel like there should be another rule: do, don't show, the idea that the story should be told through mechanics if possible, instead of in cutscenes."
Honestly, right now I don't even care about it.
might pick it up in a few months, but right now I'm burnt out on overly serious FPS/TPS with platforming and QTE.
If you loved Uncharted then you will love this
If you are a massive Tomb Raider fangirl who likes anything TR related then you will love this
However
If you loved the old games and were hoping for a proper Tomb Raider game then your out of luck. This isn't Tomb Raider, the only thing which related it to the old ones is the games name and the main characters name "Lara Croft". Why devs must insist to keep using old franchises for new ideas which would of went towards new IPs I'll never know.
Again, you would be foolish as a developer to see what the competition is doing and decide that you're going to try to just add on to existing formula instead of trying a new approach. You'd be left behind so fast and your sales would tank. I don't think it's silly that those things were optional because that's just giving the player more chances at maximizing their playing experience after the story the development team wanted to tell. The classic Tomb Raider play experience was great for what it was but times have changed and games have to respond to those changes or else fans will look elsewhere for it. Just as simple as that.