US Gamer: "Square Enix updated Lara Croft for the modern age of games, but the end result barely resembles Tomb Raider as we knew it."
Tomb Raider I, II, III Remastered is available now on PC, Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4 and 5, Xbox One, and Xbox Series X/S. Lara Croft is back in a classic remaster of the original PlayStation 1 hit title. Is the remaster any good though?
We've gone on many adventures with Lara Croft. With another reboot in the making, Wealth of Geeks felt it was a good time to go down the nostalgia rabbit hole and remember the best of those tomb-raiding thrills.
I do agree that Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness was the worse one 😂 I remember playing some of it and I took it back. That game was just awful in every way. I bought it used at gamestop and glad they had that 7 day return policy for used games 😂
Simple. He's been hating on the Tomb Raider reboots for years. I can't imagine seeing them at the top of a best TR game list let alone being on the list in general sitting well with him because of it.
Zeek
“Hating”
No no, just pointing out how TR mutated into a generic action adventure game losing the appeal of what it once was when it was more about puzzles and platforming over going Rambo, slaughtering waves of enemies
But hey, continue being a dick and speaking about me like I’m not going to see the comment.
Foxtrot, I'm curious if you have played the most recent games. Sure the 2013 reboot was hugely focused on combat, but each follow up became less and less about combat to the point where outside of a few large scale story missions I don't even remember combat being a part of shadow of the tomb raider. Shadow was so puzzle focused it actually was a bit much for me and I love the TR puzzles.
I still feel like Rise was the best of the series and I was a huge fan of the originals. To me it struck the perfect balance of exploration, platforming, puzzles, and combat. Not saying your opinion is wrong I'm just curious what you think they should have done different. Games do need to evolve somewhat to stay relevant. Would you prefer small linear jumping platform levels like the original?
I think Shadow wasn't even develop by crystal dynamics. I thought it was the worse in the new trilogy
That's right. Shadow was developed by Eidos Montreal who who went and made Marvels Guardians of the Galaxy next. (Great game)
Meanwhile after Rise of the Tomb Raider, Crystal Dynamics made Marvels Avengers. (bad game)
For me, Legend should be alot higher (along with the other two ). Shadow, I enjoyed it, but has too much has fluff, as modern games tend to do. Playing the remastered series, and apart from the controls, is very good.
I really enjoyed the first 2 games, Legend and the first of the reboots and the rest I didn’t get into so I never finished.
Completely subjective list. I really liked Underworld, I preferred Lara's design. That said I loved the horror/uncharted feel of the reboot. I think all the TR games have strengths and weaknesses. None are objectively better in every way.
Like the film or television industry, the world of gaming has seen its fair share of reboots over the years. While some of these video game reboots have had
It's sad to see a franchise you grew up with change into a shadow of it's former self because the company behind it want COD sales...well expect them anyway. I mean the game sold like what, 4 million and they still considered it a failure. I'm guessing the sequel will be more action packed then the first one if that's the case.
I mean don't get me wrong it's a good game but thats the whole dilemma with these sort of things. Despite a game being good it clouds your judgement to what the game should be like, I mean if I was reviewing this for example I would of given it a 8/10 for what it is but since it's supposed to be TOMB RAIDER and has a name to live up to I would give it a 6/10...maybe even a 5. Now is that to say it's a bad game...course not but when a game has something to live up to I don't think I could give it a good mark despite being a good game because I'd rather of had this game as a new IP, not turn one of my old time favourite franchises into something which doesn't resemble it at all. Good reviews for what they do to a franchise sends out the wrong message, I never understood how the rebooted dmc got good scores when it was WORSE then DMC4
I've said millions of times I don't see why they didn't just go with the original Lara Croft Origin story. Her plane goes down in the harsh Himalayas, she's the only survivor, it's killed her parents and her fiancée, she's alone, hurt, traumatized and must battle her way through the harsh cold Himalayas mountains...they could of added animal predators, human hunters from small villagers, deep ancient secret tombs underneath the Himalayas until after 2 weeks like the story goes she manages to get to a small village to call for help. I don't see how that is not a good game in my opinion, it would be better then what we got and at least then it would hold up the Tomb Raider franchise. Hell least it would be the Lara we all grew up with not a new version of her.
Tomb Raider was a puzzle game with TPS elements while this Tomb Raider was a over the top TPS with small puzzle elements...hell the tombs were optional. Seriously with all the stuff that happened to her in this game, look at the next gen trailer for it which was shown at the VGX with all the gunfights, executions, gunfights etc it's like Uncharted on steroids...and thats not a good thing. Don't get me started on the voice aswell, I don't mind other characters not being that well voiced but Lara should be in my opinion, she sounded like a 14 year old girl at times
Anyway to answer the question...no I don't think companies have to kill classic off to save it. They had the whole Himalayas origin story to go off and they didn't do it. They just do it for the sake of it because they try to bring in a bigger audience instead of working with the audience/fans they already have and gaining more slowly as the games go on.