I’ll pick it up at some point, but from what I hear it’s a six or so hour game. I have no fundamental problem with that, but I also don’t want to drop $60 on it in this crowded holiday season, especially when I know the price will drop soon enough.
That’s probably because TR:A (and TR:L) were effectively last-gen games, since the PS2 was the lowest-common-denominator HW for both.
Pre-TR:L? No. Post-TR:L? A bit. I personally think Lara works better as a globe-trotting adventuress than when she’s “all spelunking all the time,” so TR:L was far more to my tastes than either the previous games or TR:A. So I’ve been looking forward to TR:U, but I’ll be renting it first, because I’m not sure if it’s more TR:L or TR:A. Uncharted has actually raised the bar for what I expect out of Lara.
Man, I’m getting lost in all the acronyms, but I thought Legends was actually a bit of a return to form with more spelunking, less globe trotting. It may not have been as “all spelunking all the time” as the first games or Anniversary, but compared to whatever was before Legends—Dark Angel? Was there another in between?—it was definitely more spelunking, less running through museums and streets of Europe.
Well, I was thinking more in terms of the way the game controls, rather than the graphics. And Assassin’s Creed type controls is what really made it feel like a leap in technology to me, not just the graphics.
One of my most anticipated games this year, will buy this weekend.
I absolutely adored Anniversary, and somewhat enjoyed Legend(at least enough to get all 1000 achievements ;)).
I’m impressed BDGE. I got everything except for the Speed Runs. Those Time Trials were really challenging. Kudos.
You guys are reminding me that I didn’t play Anniversary due to lack of disk space. I figured since it was more or less a remake of the original game that I didn’t really need to go for it, but if some of you liked it better than Legend, maybe it’s worth my time after all?
That’s one of the few games I got all the Achievements for too. I don’t want to make any assumptions about how impressive BDGE may or may not be, but about half way through the speed runs I read about some glitch I don’t remember the details of now that let you stop the clock and cheat the speed runs.
I had a great time going through them in Legend. Challenging but doable. Anniversary though…well I got them for Act 1, but decided not to bother for the rest. Egypt stages alone would have killed gaming for me if I tried the attempt.
It’s fantastic. A remake in every definition of the word. Every location, area, and puzzle is completely revamped, expanded, and improved. It’s pretty much the definitive Tomb Raider experience.
I have all of them, with Underworld arriving tomorrow, I think. But, curiously, I stopped playing them after the one (can’t think of the generic title at this instant ) that played kind of like Prince of Persia 3D, with a significant lag for every movement. My loss, I’m sure, as I’ve read that subsequent games <edit: at least Anniversary, per the post above mine :) > went back to the original formula.
Peter
I’m guessing you’re talking about Angel of Darkness which is the last title that Core developed. Since TR: Legend Crystal Dynamics has handled the franchise and the controls are pretty much standard 3D platfomer controls like those in Sands of Time.
I still think that the opening of the original is FAR superior to the remake.
Reps from the UK PR firm for Eidos have confirmed that they’re asking publications not to release any reviews for Tomb Raider: Underworld below an 8/10 until Monday. The firm says they’re doing so at the request of Eidos, which is trying to manage the scores for as long as it can. The game is currently sporting a 78 on Metacritic.
Really? After that whole other thing?
Ironically, Eidos probably doesn’t have to act all evil. The game seems to be decent on its own and should sell well without trying to manipulate review publication.
My favorite part:
Said a Barrington Harvey rep on the phone this afternoon: “That’s right. We’re trying to manage the review scores at the request of Eidos.”
When asked why, the spokesperson said: “Just that we’re trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game, basically.”
Pure awesome.
That doesn’t really surprise me, but it is rare to see someone just put it right out there. I’m not going to get upset at a publisher for doing its best to make its game look as good as possible. It’s up to individual publications to either play ball or not and for buyers to wait until all the reviews are posted before making a buying decision.
It’s still a pretty shitty thing to do. Basically, you’re saying that you have no faith in your game and you expect it to get lower than 8 scores in a bunch of places but you want to dupe people for as long as possible to get maximum sales in that first weekend. Very slimy.
The alternative plan, “make a good game that will score highly”, is apparently too much work.
Oh yeah, it’s a shitty thing to do for sure. It’s just understandable from a marketing point of view I guess. It’s certainly not very pro-consumer and is also a slap in the face of the development team.
It also makes it tough for any reviewer that legitimately likes the game. Any publication that gives this game an 8 or above immediately gets put in the “sucks up to Eidos” column by anyone that knows about this situation.