So in this review, I'll be doing something similar to Crash Bandicoot: reviewing the oldest, the first of the next trilogy, and then reviewing the first in the most recent trilogy. In this case, this review will be covering:
Tomb Raider
Tomb Raider Anniversary
Tomb Raider (PS/Xbox/PC)
In another review later on, I'll be covering the seconds (TR II, Legend, Rise), and then finally I'll cap it off with the final piece in each trilogy (TR III, Underworld, Shadow). While they won't be covered in these reviews, I may choose to review the PS1 prequels (Last Revelation and its followup: Chronicles) as well as my least favorite of the titles, Angel of Darkness. However, I won't be reviewing any of the awful handheld titles nor will I be reviewing Guardian of Light or Temple of Osiris.
On that note, let's begin!
Released originally in 1996 on the PC, Sega Saturn and PS1, Tomb Raider was what I recall a smashing success. The graphics at the time were pretty solid, the gameplay was considered phenomenal with just the right touch of story (IE, barely intrusive but still enough to understand the main goal), and obviously people were in love with Lara's...assets. I'm not going to lie, I believe a lot of the game's hype and success were because of those obviously beefed up breasts since a good chunk of gamers at the time (and obviously still today) were teenage boys to middle-aged men who thought she was both sexy and badass.
This is also one of the only games I can recall where there was a sudden urban myth about a "nude patch" that would do exactly what it sounds like it would, and people went absolutely crazy trying to find it so they could apply it to the game. Even though the nude patch never actually existed, that still didn't stop people from trying to find it or create their own. It was something almost as insane as when rumors popped up of a secret way to revive Aeris from Final Fantasy VII.
But let me take a step back and go back to the main focus: the review. Obviously the first thing I want to start with is what drives the game: its story.
As I mentioned, for the most part the game's story is very much basic, but still just enough to keep the game going and to keep things interesting.
The game starts off with a nuclear bomb going off at a test site in Los Alamos, and a container being opened. What's inside is a person of unknown status, but obviously to the players watching...you know it'll be some kind of trouble that will surface at some point.
We then cut to India, where we meet our protagonist Lara for the first time just killing time relaxing. She's approached by an old acquaintance named Larson, who is there on behalf of his employer, Jaquline Natla. Natla talks Lara into going on an expedition for the Scion of Atlantis, an artifact that could be found in a tomb somewhere in Peru. So Lara goes off to find the artifact, and begins an expedition that ends up being much, much bigger than she originally realized. But lucky for us, Lara is the sassy driven sort that will let nothing stand in the way of her obtaining the prize.
So after the first story intro, we get to explore our first tomb. What I particularly enjoyed about this game is the fact that there is much exploration, many traps, many puzzles and riddles to figure out, and just enough enemies sprinkled in. There's hardly any interruptions whatsoever outside of when you finish the tomb and are getting ready to progress to the next. When you enter a new area with a new enemy, it's not Lara stopping and commenting or the level pausing so it can do something cinematic...it's you walking into a new area as a big fucking T-Rex charges in from out of nowhere, and now you have to kill it. No moments of stopping to admire it, just immediate firing of the gun the minute you walk in.
That's not to say there's NOT moments of interruption. In later levels when the antagonists are there, they'll pop up and talk right before a fight with them. But if it's not the game's main antagonist or their minions, the game doesn't stop the action to give you a chance to rest.
Suffice it to say, that's not to say these interruptions aren't welcome, either. When story does resurface and we learn more about the main antagonist's intentions, it's actually quite thrilling to watch despite the incredibly mediocre voice acting (but to be fair, a lot of voice acting around this time was awful). Despite the fact that I absolutely didn't trust Natla, it still surprised me at least slightly when more about her came into light after the first area, and though it made sense after that, her being the one that was in that stasis container (let alone one of the rulers of Atlantis) actually took me by surprise.
But what made the game entertaining was simply the exploration. Finding secrets followed by that little jingle was always a delight, and always made me more amped to find even more. And this was a game that prides itself on exploring and finding items, as it never held your hand to tell you where to find such items. Sure, you couldn't progress sometimes without finding specific ones, but you would always have to backtrack and search every nook and cranny yourself rather than the game telling you where it was. The variety of levels also helped, going from icy caverns, to beautiful ancient temples, to lush hidden jungles, to equally beautiful desert Egypt...every area was delightful. Frustrating to say the least on occasion (as some of those traps were difficult as hell at first...and the game supplies plenty of them as well as puzzles), but delightful nonetheless.
Now, I know what you're going to say...and yes I'll be the first to admit that in this day and age, the original Tomb Raider's graphics are incredibly dated..especially when comparing it to its Anniversary remake.
But again, keep in mind that this was 1996, when developers were still mostly comfortable with 2D sprites, and 3D rendering was still in its early stages. When Tomb Raider came out, graphics like this were absolutely stunning, almost considered revolutionary.
And let's be honest, it still has one of my favorite title themes that to this day still sounds lovely:
But this was a game definitely more about the gameplay than anything else. There was never intrusive music that played to fit the "theme" of a level, but instead kept it pretty bare...keeping most songs to "Holy shit watch out for that big T-rex!" or "look you found a secret!" and whatnot, as well as just basic background noise (many being just literal noises/general ambiance).
To this day, I still believe the original Tomb Raider had the right mix of action, adventure, and is still a wonderful game despite the fact that I absolutely hate "3D" movement compared to free movement.
And let's be honest, I did love exploring Croft Manor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I can always wear my nostalgic glasses and talk about how great the original is...but what about the remake?
Released in 2007, this is
technically the second game of the Legend trilogy, but chronologically it's the first (since it takes place before Legend). Originally this was supposed to be a 10 year anniversary release for the first game...and goodness were the trailers pretty...well...pretty!
I remember being so pumped because I'd enjoyed the original games, so imagining going back to the first game in such a beautiful style made me incredibly hyped. It promised to be everything the first game was, as well as adding some new bits to make it even more engaging.
So some time when the game released, I ended up picking up a copy. The introduction was almost identical outside of it being beefed up a bit graphically, and it gave me hope. The minute Natla was introduced though gave me a bit of pause. Whereas in the original game (be it graphically they couldn't express it completely) she didn't give any signs of such even physically, in the remake it was such an easy tell at the beginning to tell she was the villain. From her voice to her look, to her showing off her obviously-not-completely-human hand with its long fingernails, everything about her said "yep, this is definitely the villain." And sure, I played the original so I knew going in that it was going to be her...but anyone with eyes would be able to tell almost instantly in that first moment that she was going to be the bad guy...or at the very least that she wasn't what she was presenting herself to be (nor even completely human).
So that made me a little wary, but I waited till it finished and went to the title screen so I could hear an upgraded version of that lovely title song. What I got...wasn't really bad, but it wasn't great especially considering the title song for Legends (which I'll throw in the Tomb Raider (The Seconds) review):
It obviously went for a more orchestrated feel, and like I said it doesn't sound bad at all. But what I liked about the original was that it wasn't about all the little sounds and bits...it was just simply about the main song itself (also, why no male vocals in this one?).
Also, is it just me or was the music a bit more intrusive in this one? Sure, the original had music in moments such as fighting that giant T-Rex, but total...the entire game had 20 songs, barely one of them more than a minute, and some were more background suspense sounds rather than actual songs.
Anniversary has a total of 80 songs (literally quadruple what the original has), with 44 (so a little over half) being over a minute long. Sure, the game has its share of cutscenes, but the original did as well and accomplished that without an over-score. Did the remake really need to try to outdo that and make every scene try to feel more important by over-scoring it?
Now now, I'm probably just being a bit dramatic, I mean it couldn't possibly get worse than that. The core gameplay is good, the addition of a grapple...while slightly unusual (though makes sense since Legends had it, so why not?), made exploring a bit more interesting. There's really nothing else wrong with at all right? Right. Now let's get to my favorite encounter, the T-Rex face off, I bet they absolutely can't botch that, right?
Well...damn. I didn't think anything could make that T-rex encounter less interesting than it was in the original...but sure. Make the encounter into a cinematic with some QTEs sprinkled in, and then make it some kind of enclosed boss battle with a specific weakpoint.
Because everyone loves those.
Seriously, what is with this love of QTEs and weakpoint specific bosses in games across the board? This is a game with a girl who shoots first and asks questions later. Do we really need to make her strategize how to get a big dinosaur to ram into the wrong area rather than just shooting it dead? The makers couldn't seriously just beef this up and make it feel that much more intense in the beefed up graphics?:
But I digress. To the game's credit, everything is absolutely stunning to look at in the new graphics. Despite being tombs, they have much more personality to them and are even more exciting to explore.
And it was still fun to explore and find relics, I'll give it that.
However, where as the original game could be frustratingly difficult, I found Anniversary to be quite the opposite. Sure, you could argue that I had played through it already with the original, so obviously the remake would be easy since I'd know where everything is.
Except, no.
Sure, it's a remake of the original, but it's also completely different. Everything looks the same, but not everything is in the same place. With the added grapple mechanic, they moved things around a bit, changed areas a bit, and overall just made things a bit different. Not to mention 3D movement is no longer a thing, as Lara can now freely move however she wants to.
On top of that, one thing that also made the original more difficult in the PS1 version was its lack of free saving. Instead, you had to find save crystals, which were obviously very scattered. Anniversary, however, saving is much less scarce since it takes on the PC's version of being able to save basically anywhere you want.
But overall, it just feels like it was easier. Even though puzzles were virtually the same in both games, getting through them in the original still feels like an absolute chore sometimes because of how difficult they can be. Whereas in the new game, I can't think of one puzzle I didn't get finished in at least the second try, despite some being the same that I'm having difficulty with in the original game.
I will give it some credit, however, to the story. In Anniversary, it felt a bit more fleshed out and revised compared to the original...although again, that also cut off some of the suspense. Rather than finding out some way into the game that the villain hid an important fact about the artifact (that it was split into 3), she tells you right in the intro that it was simply a piece. So in reality, despite her looking like a definite villain, it gives Lara less of a reason to suspect her of trickery, which watered things down a bit. It's an odd decision to say the least to make that decision to tell her right off that she's only going for a piece, and makes the betrayal seem more forced and less organic when it happens.
Overall, beautiful game most definitely. But while it lacks some things about the original that I hated (again, the 3D movement), it also lacks some things about it that I also liked (such as the intensity at parts that was replaced by cinematic quick time events). So sure, I'd recommend giving it a go if you played the original (or not), but there's just still a bit of magic that it didn't catch in why Lara was such a badass awesome character nor why the original games are both exciting and intense (which amusingly, Legends and Underworld didn't suffer as much, which I'll talk about in their reviews).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And speaking on that note, let's talk about the reboot which promised to show us how Lara came to be such a bad ass sassy but loveable character we know and love. That's right, now we get to talk about
This was touted as the game that would explain why Lara was such a badass. It promised that it would go through the events as to why Lara became the tomb raider that we know and love. It was basically the origin story that would lead up to her awesome adventures.
Well..that was the basic nature of what was promised. Did it deliver? Well...kind of. I mean sure, it definitely went into some pretty harsh stuff that happened to her and definitely explained as to HOW she could have become this hardened badass that shoots first and answers later.
However, what was promised in the first game STILL hasn't been delivered. Not only did they stretch it out into 3 games (as opposed to the promised 1...which I'm fine with), but even 3 games in, she's still not the Lara Croft that everyone fell in love with. She's still whiny (and trust me, I don't use that lightly), emotional, and almost completely the opposite of what Lara Croft was in even the Legends trilogy, despite being told many times that the original reboot title was going to take us through the events that shaped her into the Tomb Raider we've grown to love.
But I digress, let's talk about the reboot title itself, shall we?
So in this game, Lara and her group of friends, camera crew, and whatnot are sailing towards the Devil's Triangle, the place that Lara believes a long lost civilization known as Yamatai resided. But on their way there, the boat and its crew are caught in a violent storm that tears the boat apart as the crew are forced to jump ship (which Lara literally does as the half that she's on is on the brink of sinking into the ocean). Lara wakes up on shore to see her friends on a hill above, having also survived. But before she can get their attention, she's knocked unconscious and taken to a cave. Now alone, Lara must find a way to find and save her friends from an island full of dark secrets, and try to make it out alive.
So I'm going to cut right to the game's biggest problem: This is a game called Tomb Raider, but it's completely a survival game. Your main area is a single large island that does have plenty of ruins, but aside from a couple of areas, the ruins aren't even the main focus.
Yeah, remember how the other games had you going to places like Peru, Egypt, England, Venice, and whatnot all in the same game rather than keeping you in one area? Well that's not the focus of the new trilogy. Rather than having you explore various tombs in other places, they're all about keeping you grounded in one area (or two if we're being generous for the next two games).
To be fair, in this particular title I do completely get this dynamic. I mean you're stranded on an island and forced to survive, which is why I absolutely don't fault the one-main-area dynamic at all.
But I would be lying if I said that games like Uncharted didn't ruin Tomb Raider, and vice versa. When Uncharted came out after Tomb Raider's time of silence, people fell in love with it and even considered it better. It was a game about exploring ancient tombs, and fighting plenty of bad guys at every turn...and people loved it. I can only imagine C.D/Eidos saw this when they were working on bringing back Tomb Raider, and were like "That. We want that!" And then when they saw how much people loved this game and it's one-main-area dynamic...suddenly that became the thing. Suddenly Uncharted 4 was on one big island area (though to it's credit it did shift occasionally for flashbacks, and didn't
start at that main island), and the Tomb Raider sequels...despite having no main reason for her lack of mobility, decided to keep this one-area dynamic (though technically 2 for the later games).
Off that note though, I will give credit that this game does hit some pretty hard notes in character development. We see characters that Lara has grown attached to either die, or absolutely resent her because they believe everything happening to them is all her fault. There's only one character that actually still associates with her after the events of this game (technically two if you read the comics), which again I'll talk about him in the later reviews.
But the character development itself is pretty beautifully executed. You see Lara having to deal with all of this death and resentment from people who were once friends, as well as having to turn on this survival instinct when the island's current inhabitants try to kill her. You actually get choked up at points when you see her dealing with stuff for the first time, because the way she deals with it is absolutely human. When she kills someone for the first time, it's a difficult moment to where she fights between the urge to puke at the sight, but also crying because she had to make that difficult choice.
My main problem however is that despite all of this supposed character development she goes through, she's still very much the same person in the three games. She's still the emotional character that has difficulty doing things on her own, and is still immensely susceptible to being tricked/betrayed because she still makes herself completely vulnerable and unable to control her emotions. Things that the "hardened" Lara Croft even in her less stereotypical state (such as Legends) never really had about her. If this is a way of trying to make Lara a more "realistic" character, I think it's still going a bit far.
On a more positive note, as much as I hate the one-area-only dynamic, Yamatai is actually very pretty to look at (despite its penchant for dead bodies everywhere). It goes through all sorts of weather changes (which the story explains as to why), and many of the areas are very lovely to look at at the different points in time. I absolutely loved seeing some of the fallen ruins in this game, and my only gripe was that it focused more on the bullet-hell survival aspect rather than actually in depth exploring some of these ruins.
And as I mentioned, the challenge tombs were absolutely pitiful. Each started as a long walk to even get to where the tomb challenge would be, and each had but a singular challenge and were confined to one small area that, at most, would take minutes to complete. Again, the tombs were nice to look at, but for a game called Tomb Raider...I was expecting far more to the them (outside of figure out easy puzzle, collect reward). What's funny is that more tombs were added to Rise, but it's the same dynamic: solve puzzle, collect reward. Though admittedly the first at least is interesting. Unfortunately, I'm also feeling the same vibe from Shadow, despite it supposedly being "littered" with tombs. Maybe it's just me, but rather than just having a vast quantity of small tombs, I prefer having a handful of actual larger quality ones that I can explore without having to shoot enemies every minute.
One quirk that I did love, however, was the voice commands for the consoles such as the PS4 release. Rather than having to shuffle through the weapons, or even having to scroll through until you found a specific tab in the document/relic/map/cache menu...you literally could just say "Bow" to equip the bow, or "Show map" to bring up the map, and then say "documents" for it to move to the document tab...or hell, you could even just say "pause" or "unpause" for the game to do just that. It's a small feature, but especially when up against enemies...it's really awesome to be able to switch gear on the fly like that. It's actually a shame that the later games didn't keep that feature.
Speaking of documents/relics/caches, that's another quirk I did love, and one reason I'm not entirely against one-area-one types of games in this capacity. I loved collecting relics in this game, and loved how scattered they were. I especially loved documents because you got to learn not only about past inhabitants of the island, but you could also learn the feelings of your own friends whose documents you'd find in places they last were, as well as learn the motivations of the main antagonist and his cult of followers.
The one I was lukewarm about was the caches. It was fine finding them, but the end result was something almost cringeworthy to me.
To explain that, let me explain that by the time I was really getting into collecting items in this game was when it hit on the PS4, and Rise was just announced. By this point, there was no indication neither in the game or out that there was going to be a sequel at all. And I'll be perfectly honest...if you finished the game straight-through (not collecting everything), there were absolutely no hints that there was going to be a sequel. The ending closed things pretty well, so I would have expected it to be a one-shot thing that would lead into more intense games in the future.
But Rise was announced as a sequel, and started mentioning a group known as "Trinity" that Lara had been following. It was a name that seemingly came out of nowhere, and I was baffled as to why they were suddenly introducing this big bad group out of nowhere.
So I shrugged and went back to playing the reboot title.
Lo and behold, I collected half of the caches, and get a new document with an incredibly short message mentioning Trinity. Then I collected all of the caches, and got another document detailing Trinity's interest in the island.
Wait...so not only was there never any other documents scattered that could have been found in the main story, and not only did none of the current people on the island have nothing to do with this big bad organization (which the movie poorly rectified)...but the only way you'd be able to find out about the actual main antagonist for the trilogy would be to find every single cache (which not all were that easy to find)?
I mean, it doesn't make the most sense. I get that this is a survival game at its core...but shouldn't you be setting up the trilogy's main villain a little better so that someone who
isn't a completionist doesn't walk into the sequel being like "wait, who the hell are these guys and where did they even come from?"
It's one thing if it's supposed to be a one-shot villain (IE, the villain in this game), but when it's supposed to be an overarching villain or worse, an entire large corporation of villains, you'd think they'd want to introduce them a bit better in the first title (though I'll talk more about their horrible mismanagement in the later reviews).
I'm also not really a big fan of this crafting-skill system that games keep adopting. Why do characters have to "level up" and gain skills in every game? Don't get me wrong, I can understand the crafting part because, again, it's a game about survival, but do we really have to keep crafting new parts in each weapon to make it "better?" Granted, it doesn't get as bad as later games...but we'll talk about those later.
Overall, it's a game that shines in certain areas (look, feel, character development, voice commands), but fails in others (Lara isn't a "hardened" survivor that becomes the tomb raider we've come to know, main baddies for the rest of the trilogy aren't set up well, comes off are more of a bullet-hell survival like Uncharted rather than an actual Tomb Raider). But it's still one that I still recommend if you're curious. It's absolutely not a bad game in the slightest...but for a Tomb Raider, let's just say that it's not the best tomb that's been raided so far.
And that concludes the review of the firsts in the Tomb Raider universe. Next time, I'll post the seconds which will include:
Tomb Raider II
Tomb Raider Legend
*Rise of the Tomb Raider
and you can hear my thoughts about the sequel to the reboot, which I'll admit had its better moments, but was definitely not perfect.
Until next time!
