The wreck of Maria Doria is still one of the best Tomb Raider levels today, so I don't think it's the worst. Personally I think Angel of Darkness takes that title, simply because it's unfinished and never will be.
I like Venice and Opera a lot, they feel like classic Heather but too much enemies.
I like how much it commits to the underwater exploration; as in it feels like a long process with many steps, but it does drag on for too long and half of the levels are dull and cramped up with linear corridors... that really highlight why Heather > Neal. I do love The Deck though, it's large and open and fun to explore.
Most of the China stuff bores me, sadly. I just don't find the setting exciting.
I can't find the graphic comparing numbers of enemies killed per game, but 2 is the worst of the original games.
for me personally, it's a bit more complicated than that. I actually thing both TR1 and 2 are the least interesting of the classics. But TR1 gets points for the novelty of being the first to introduce the foundations of the series in the first place, and having some genuinely outstanding level in St.Francis Folly, Palace of Midas, Cistern, Tomb of Tihocan even, and some Egypt levels, but I'm biased against Egypt levels so I can't help you there.
I didn't understand why I liked TR2 more at first. I think the first level really gave the impression that "This is going to be a harder and more varied game" And while Venice definitely hit it out of the park with first impressions. And you can tolerate the obviously increased enemies at first since the game is dropping guns and ammo everywhere...Once I personally got to the underwater levels...the amount of enemies just started to DRAG a lot, it felt like they were constantly getting in the way of exploration, rather than serving the purpose they did in the last game, of interfering with platforming, therefore the goal of kill was to clear a path for you to safely platform, rather than fight the enemies in an of themselves.
Another thing I'd say is...it felt like there was just waaaaaay less platforming in general, is that just me? Like until Tibet, I couldn't remember that many deliberate platforming sequences like the fire room in Palace of Midas (yes I know there's a "fire" room equivalent in TR2, but you can mostly just swim under it, and it wasnt as challenging as the TR1 one) It was more so a focus on traps rather than platforming, which IS a good thing, and something I wanted dearly in TR1...but playing TR2...I've realized everything is less threatening due to no save crystals...the traps don't feel like something I have to get right in a sequence, and more so something I have to get lucky at once or twice...there's a lot to say about TR2 vs TR1...
I like Venice and Opera a lot, they feel like classic Heather but too much enemies.
I like how much it commits to the underwater exploration; as in it feels like a long process with many steps, but it does drag on for too long and half of the levels are dull and cramped up with linear corridors... that really highlight why Heather > Neal. I do love The Deck though, it's large and open and fun to explore.
Most of the China stuff bores me, sadly. I just don't find the setting exciting.
I can't find the graphic comparing numbers of enemies killed per game, but 2 is the worst of the original games.
>I like Venice and Opera a lot, they feel like classic Heather but too much enemies.
I like how much it commits to the underwater exploration; as in it feels like a long process with many steps, but it does drag on for too long and half of the levels are dull and cramped up with linear corridors... that really highlight why Heather > Neal. I do love The Deck though, it's large and open and fun to explore.
Most of the China stuff bores me, sadly. I just don't find the setting exciting.
I can't find the graphic comparing numbers of enemies killed per game, but 2 is the worst of the original games.
This entire spiel basically perfectly echoes my thoughts. I liked the beginning, Venice especially, I'm not completely sure whether it's due to the novelty, but to be fair, a lot of things in Venice can still be done out of order. And the boat puzzle is GENUINELY genius and great use of a first time New mechanics (vehicles). I liked Opera house just because of how big it was, and how surprised I was to realize how intertwined and connected it was, and how many secret layers it had. Despite it being largely linear, that linearity was offset by hardcore committing to Tomb Raider's unique Puzzle Box level design that reveals how huge and complex the level is.
But, as much as I liked the underwater exploration, just for committing to it...it really did fricking drag man holy shit, idk how the underwater levels ended up feeling like the longest. And I'm not even going to lie, the underwater navigation wasn't even hard. Tomb of Tihocan, at the end, had harder water navigation. More often than not it was just tense due to more water enemies (which was more annoying than fun) or timed switch and lever sequences. But it's really around this time you start to feel how linear levels are, they don't loop or interconnect as interestingly either.
On top of still having the problem I encountered in TR1, of feeling too simple. Yes it's (slightly) harder but still simple.
is temple of Xian a good level or something? to me Venice is the best level in Tomb Raider so far...but then again it's literally one of the first levels so that isn't exactly a good look for TR2...
Yea its a good one, very long and hard but in a good way. If you liked Venice the best i don't think you'll like it as much cos its not that same kind of inventive with the boat puzzle and the inside-outside dynamic, Xian is like just the TR basics of jumping and avoiding traps but dialed up to really test you.
Also it looks great, it announces the new change of texture and model style for the endgame really boldly. I would say its the best looking of any of the TR games
damn, I was planning on dropping tomb raider after Tibetan foothalls because of how ridiculous that last stretch backtracking was, but I've now realized that all the levels I disliked were Neal's levels lmao. Now that I know the last stretch of the game are Heather's levels, I might actually go through with it to see if I'll like it.
>white people realizing for the first time that the words doesn't completely revolve around them and that people can naturally have big lips without makeup.
White woman don't wear brown lipstick willingly. It clashes with their skin, and Lara is an adventure, if you've ever worn makeup, or talked to somebody who has, you'd realize how fricking annoying and obnoxious it would be to wear it during any intense physical activity, and it's not like Lara is chilling in the gym or something, she's constantly outside either in the wild, or underwater too. It would be INSANE and absurdly vain to still wear makeup under all those circumstances. Plus, Lara doesn't seem like the type who's actually that concerned with her looks.
Lara is simply not white. She looks like an unironic mutt, or Columbian or something along those lines. Her lips are obviously natural If you've met anybody who's not pale white. And her skin colour is more Mediterranean colour than straight white. It's just because the company TR was released with is racist and capitalistic as frick, so they only take the safe route and made them change Lara's name to be white British as frick that there's any confusion. I'm pretty sure she was first designed to be Hispanic and they never actually changed her facial design too much, just her name and/or clothes a bit.
Personally, I like it. Lara ends up having an incredibly unique look that stands out against all the pale white, or blonde white females that PLAGUE videogames. And no Lara since has been as charming and *expressive* as Classic Lara.
the later games don't even include the original creator of the character Toby Gard. God you guys are so fricking dumb lmao. AOD was the WORST tomb raider by far, and her face isn't even that mucu more detailed, just longer, and less cartoonish.
as a fricking writer and consultant you disingenuous moron, he wasn't creating the games or designing the character any longer. how the frick is everybody such a disingenuous moron? does nobody at all think or do research before they speak? wtf? this shouldn't even be a debate because there's nothing complex or nuanced to it.
>While initially hired as a creative consultant, his work became "hands on" during the production and eventually included Lara's visual redesign, overseeing character design and creation, co-writing the story, designing and implementing parts of the character movement system, and directing the cinematics.[4]
Shut the frick up
9 months ago
Anonymous
source this or it doesn't fricking mean anything. He only had any involvement with some of the audio logs, and I think he also had some involvement with the camera in Underworld.
9 months ago
Anonymous
His wikipedia article with a link to his linkedin.
9 months ago
Anonymous
okay then why does the Wikipedia on the actual LAU games say otherwise? That he didn't redesign her character and only acted as a writing consultant? Even if I give you that, it's not like it matters, since he went against the first reason he left Tomb Raider in the first place (because Lara was too sexualized) and unironically allowed it to be even worse in the LAU games, she legit wears a crop top, a swimsuit that rides her ass. And he even created the butt camera that zooms in on her but when she sprints. If I attribute all this to Toby, or his acceptance of it. It still goes against classic Lara and his complaint of her depiction as a sex icon. It also goes in favour of my argument that all the Lara's past classic Lara are actually nothing like Lara. They're just cosplayers wearing her clothes or name.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I think he never was against her being sexy, he just didn't want it to be her main feature. Or he could change his opinion in the matter, it was 10 years between the original and legend.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Or he could change his opinion in the matter, it was 10 years between the original and legend.
yeah, that was my point.
but do you seriously find it realistic that Lara would wear makeup throughout any of her adventures? Where she's constantly diving underwater, rolling on the ground, making tense jumps, backflipping, ledge hanging, touching dusty artifacts and levers? It just doesn't make sense to me. Especially because her face doesn't look white anyway, and she doesn't look to have makeup anywhere else. I'd be fine with the LAU "redesign" if everybody wouldn't pretend that just because she wears clothes vaguely similar to the classic Lara that actually makes her more true a Lara than the reboots, even though the daddy issues and "I can't believe I le killed somebody..." ALL began with her. It feels like nobody actually cared about what Lara is. Beyond the surface level characteristics of her looking hot, and having identifiable clothes.
Reboot Lara only looks so drastically different because she exists on a totally different generation from the two prior, where cartoony, non detailed looks, weren't allowed any longer. Just like classic Lara largely looks the way she does, because she was born in a time of "strong woman" and undetailed looks.
Mind you, I don't like Reboot Lara, I only care about the games part of games. And I simple associate classic Lara with the classic games, so I like her. LAU and Reboots however? Are so much different and less unique games, that they exist in the same mind space for me. All that's different is aesthetic, and I already said I care about gameplay over everything.
but the convenient thing about stupidity, is that everyone else is so equally stupid that they validate and protect dogshit and shallow opinions, because that can't come up with anything more than that either.
NTA but the Aldwych level can go frick itself. Even though I like the London section, that one level is easily the worst level of the classic Tomb Raider games.
this level looks so unique and based. I can't wait, the recent resurgence of dark souls has convinced people that "hard = good" and people actually like difficulty. But this is a facade. Something I've learned in recent years is that the vast majority of people don't actually play the games. They play with a guide, or look up builds of what is the easiest way to play. Run around, find the best weapon, throw on the best Armour, and just run through the game with health bars half the screen. I remember my first playthrough of dark souls was lonely and harsh. I only looked up "beginner dex weapons" or "how to use fire keeper soul" at the very very very beginning of the game because I wasted a fire keeper soul at first, so I just reset it. By the time I was at anor londo, my health bar was still barely a quarter of my screen, my stamina bar, even smaller, I struggled with every single fight and enjoyed the game for that. Because I genuinely enjoyed difficulty and hadn't known yet. Mind you, dark souls 1 has given me some of the most unfair experiences in gaming, but it's difficulty was more than just that. It was deliberate, and has a point. Meaning.
That has been lost nowadays, and nobody actually appreciates difficulty, what they tell themselves is difficulty is actually "action" dark souls was difficult due to navigation and enemy encounters that had to be solved almost like a puzzle to conserve estus. Now, it's just about avoiding cool looking attacks, and people are satisfied with that. I've gone on a bit of a tangent, but my point is that "this is too difficult" is a cheap criticism, and will always be one of the easiest and most convenient "criticisms" because people don't ACTUALLY like difficulty, and that IS a bias, that used to blind people (journos specifically) to what makes a game good. Aldwych might end up being unfair, but I still never hear any actual criticisms of TR3 that isn't just "it was too much for me"
9 months ago
Anonymous
You're the most pretentious gay I've seen in a long time. Stop sniffing your own farts and get the frick out of here.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I don't know what to tell you other than...that's your problem? Seriously. Any response I make, no matter how justified, will just be twisted and recharacterized to fit into your narrow and comfortable world view, why bother? You're not even intelligent or self aware enough to realize how the way you speak contributes to a self fulfilling prophecy of "pretentiousness" I'll start by deconstructing your words. What relevance does "pretentiousness" have? The definition seems to say "trying to give an impression of being of being greater or of more importance than actually is" If I were to express my intent, you would just deny it, which makes no sense since you aren't me, but your subjective perception will affirm that anyway so it doesn't matter. If I say "I'm just being honest about my feeling and thoughts, and not trying to make it anymore than that" you won't engage with that, and just default to your subjective perception again. If I say "what is of greater importance here? I never said anything was of great importance, or intelligence? Prove how anything I've said is wrong?" You'll just refer back to your subjective perception that it's wrong, or inflated importance because you feel like it is.
If you haven't realized it yet...Nothing you've actually said...actually mean anything. Everything is self referential, and Inconsiderate of reality. Essentially it means you CANNOT be wrong because you say or think you aren't. This is obviously stupid because if truth becomes that arbitrary, then nothing has any actual reasoning for meaning what it does. Nothing actually indicates or references anything independent of your mind. Which my being objectively is, if not for the fact that I have my own thoughts that run counter to yours, then because I express thoughts you fundamentally view as adjective would suggest they're not of your own mind. Meaning truth and reality would be independent of your mind and you can be objectively wrong.
Which you are.
9 months ago
Anonymous
everything you just wrote can be applied to you >I'm right and you're wrong.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You misunderstood it then. And there's no further point in explaining it because ironically you did it again "Everything you could say could be applied to you" Isn't an argument. It is an interpretation. An opinion. I directly referenced what you said, and why it wasn't substantial or relevant, and the problem with the way you engaged with me objectively. Nothing about "I'm right your wrong" was said, you just doubled down on the stupid subjective pretentious thing. It was about a specific way you acted and engaged. If that many words wasn't enough to get the point across, and you couldn't even offer anything I said that was actually wrong, beyond appealing to your subjective interpretation. Then there's no point saying much else.
It's a dark souls 1 maze with shortcuts and shit.
The atmosphere is godly.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Dark Souls 1 before Dark Souls 1. It sounds like a masterpiece. No wonder people got so hardcore filtered by it. There are people that to this day complain about blighttown despite it being one of the most complex levels with the best use of verticality. Same with the depths, just without the verticality. I've also heard people complain about demon ruins, the single only level in Dark Souls 3 that's actually hard to navigate. I've learned that people don't actually like the unique and slow paced difficulty of the original Dark souls and just want to flashy action shit. Anything that's actually hard and not straightforward? Souls fans, and normies whine about to high heavens.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>There are people that to this day complain about blighttown
on consoles, the framerate was so abyssal, Neogaf started the petition for a PC release.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>people complain about demon ruins
Catcombs and demon ruins are just elden ring filler tier chalice dungeons.
don't bother. do you genuinely think anybody on Ganker has the capacity to articulate their thoughts in depth? two things you should always think about when engaging with the average person. If they have adopted the easy, convenient, and popular opinion. Then they likely haven't considered it thoughtfully, they're just like everyone else, and the average human being lacks both critical thinking and logic, and is immensely biased. There is research to prove this, but if you're not moronic, you don't even need research to know this. morons that are unthinking and bad faith individuals will try to spin this in this incredibly deceitful way to create a narrative: "so anything popular = le bad!? hah! I gotcha! because intuition tells us all that popular can't be bad, even tho that's a fundamental logical fallacy!" No where was it said that popular = bad. Just that popular often = no critical thinking, or depth. For somebody to be engaged seriously, they have to demonstrate that they've truly thought of something beyond the surface level, or introspected on themselves and why they liked or didn't like something. I'll give an example:
I dislike Devil May Cry, but understand completely why people like it. It has very cool and flashy moves that when flow together, make you feel like some sort of action hero that is in tune with your weapons and ability. But I dislike it. Because no move is actually meaningful to me. A lot of the weapons, moves, and combos are redundant, because the enemies rarely ever actually fight back and threaten you in such a way that compels an appropriate response. It doesn't simulate true combat of a back and forth, it is purely on the player expression front. The combat is wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle.
Now. Somebody can disagree with this (they'd be hard pressed to) But at the very least you can understand and engage with what I'm saying since I've laid out clearly what is what, and why what is what. While expressing introspect.
The level design just really suffers from the primitive technology. More often than in 1, you're wondering what the ugly, gigantic pile of blocks in front of you is supposed to be, or what you're expected to be able to do and what not. There are spots where you have to be in the right position down to the pixel to be able to grab some ledge and you're bound to assume it's not the right way before pulling it off. It makes progress feel like a chore.
>The level design just really suffers from the primitive technology. More often than in 1, you're wondering what the ugly, gigantic pile of blocks in front of you is supposed to be, or what you're expected to be able to do and what not.
lmao what? no it doesn't? navigation honestly feels WAY easier overall in TR2 than TR1, and pointing out blocks is way more of an issue in TR1 (which isn't even an issue if you have a keen eye and aren't moronic) why do people constantly project their subjective interpretations and faults as if they're legitimate criticism of anything? Do they not understand how meaningless and arbitrary they make any discussion or analysis? Like this can't even be validated or substantiated in anyway beyond appealing to oneself?
Look bro. You're just bad at navigation, TR2 is the LEAST problematic for figuring out where to jump, because the levels are so distinctly familiar, due to largely being set in many modernish places, rather than caves and jungles that can be a lot more vague. I'd honestly say TR2 pulls a lot more tricks with levers, switches, and block puzzles rather than straight platforming and "jumps" to make. I can't remember a time I didn't know where to jump to, it was a lot more about execution than navigation.
this is a midwit take, and a shallow one at that.
also I love how "primitive" technology yields more complex and elaborate level design than anything modern that isn't dark souls. It's almost like subjective perception of "outdated" are wholly meaningless and lazy words for people that can't articulate themselves well.
Play Project Eden, the real successor to the original Tomb Raider set in a cyberpunk world. Core Design really dropped the ball by making only one of the characters a female. Should have been an all girl team like Spice Girls. One asian, one black, one latino and one white anglo. It would have saved the studio.
damn? what is project eden like? I've never played or heard of it before? is it truly like Tomb Raider? I heard the Core team was barely the original people that worked on tomb raider by Angel of Darkness...so I don't know how much of that actual original core soul would still be intact in this game, but I'm interested and curious nonetheless.
TR2 and 3 used throw all their tricks in first levels to lure the player in, that's why China and India are best levels, respectfully.
India especially, there are just not that many immersive soulful low poly jungles in PS1 era. I wish some indie devs would make something similar, but in broader scale for modern computers.
You will never fool marketers into thinking people still care about old TR with your thread spam
You will never get anoher old style TR
You will never get old Lara back
You will never get laid
It's fricking over for you moron
>You will never fool marketers into thinking people still care about old TR with your thread spam
You will never get anoher old style TR
You will never get old Lara back
You will never get laid
It's fricking over for you moron
I know this all already. I've been in virtually every Tomb Raider thread. The fact that people defend LAU so adamantly despite its gameplay being closer to Reboots than the classics says it all already. Tomb Raider will never be Tomb Raider again. I talk about these games because I am currently playing them and find them abundantly interesting. It seems most people simply don't care though? Nobody actually wants to discuss anything everybody is threatened by words and drenched in insecurity? But nobody calls it out because everyone else is the same, they don't care and can't be bothered to engage in depth discussion. I know it all, I know my words won't reach anybody. To some degree I say it for me. Because I simply need to get my thoughts out somewhere at times, and because...I just imply wish to speak. I have too much to say, and when you want to say something, what do you do? You speak, even if nobody wants to hear. It may not be wholly rational but...what can I do except express myself as I am, as honestly and directly as I can...
if you had actually paid attention to a single thread, you'd know that ive already said multiple times that I'm a zoomer who just started playing Tomb Raider recently and have already multiple times expressed progress in TR2. The flimsy narratives you need to come up with to cope and rationalize reality are pathetic, and indicative of an inability to actually engage with reality as it is because it would mean confronting the idea that the games you so thoughtlessly hold onto, might not be as good as you think they are.
HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA
I can't remember which of the classic TR games it was but one of them they were real dicks about the level design, e.g. deliberately hiding the way to progress in camera blind spots. That was the worst. It just wasn't fricking fun to constantly have the game grind to a halt as you try to find which awkward to see spot they placed the switch, passageway, etc. in order to move on.
sounds like a skill issue, paying attention to your surrounding, and having a keen awareness of things is a fundamental principle of exploration and navigation. often in the end you end up realizing you didn't find it because you simply weren't actually as engaged and perceptive with the game as you thought, because games rarely ever push you that far to engage with them and give you full focus, attention and thought. No wonder most games are linear cinematic corridors like God of War where the NPC companion tells you the puzzle solution, or open worlds where you literally CANNOT get lost if you walk in any direction. Exploration and Adventure is lost, and filters too many people because they think it's "slow" and just "not fun" it's always beyond me how Dark Souls ever got big, because every subsequent release has dumbed down the exploration to focus on action like the generic mainstream games it once claimed to not be.
again. skill issue. which is fine, stupidity is popular and appealed to, you'll have plenty of games that are perfect for you sensibilities...but again. skill issue
(just want to mention one last thing. it's funny how he mentions the "camera" hiding things, which doesn't make sense, since you can face any direction, and look at everything with the l1 button. But also, because in real life the human perspective is inherently limited by first person, and exploration requires considering the fact that you don't have a birds eye view and can't fly, or else exploration with be trivial. It's like they can't comprehend how the fact of having natural limitations contributes to how we experience thing, becoming more important)
That's 3. It is the worst of the OG trilogy, it's not a bad game and i still liked it, but it's the most frustrating. That combined with the overuse of dark places because they had improved the lighting and wanted to show it off could really annoying.
The one that always felt like it had the most fair difficulty balance was 1, the checkpoints are really well spaced. 2, it's too easy honestly because you can save scum, 3, its possible to run out of saves too early in a level and have to do too much before you find another one, making getting the next two or three major areas exactly right a chore. 1 always felt just right to me.
Never played the first one but if i had to rank the games it would be 2,5,4,3.
2: Feels just like the most playable game in the franchise, not too hard and not too easy while having great settings with Venice, Nepal, China and with the right amount of supernatural stuff like the yetis.
5: Because it tells a collection of storys, it has the most intersting settings. It literally switches to a horror game mid way through when you play Lara as a child that sneaked into Ireland. Or later you are in Area51 and see an Ufo. It is also the best looking and cinematic game. It only gets shit on unjustified because it doesn't revive Lara after her death in the 4th game.
4: This is probably the game everyone means when they talk about the classic TR atmosphere and they are right. No music, only echoing footseps in ancient buildings and the feeling of isolation, loneliness but also strangley calmness. But the game only plays in egypt and it all looks pretty similair.
3: Can't remeber much just that it was dark and way too hard because the puzzles were way too convoluted and all over the map.
Bonus:
Angel of darkness is comfy once you get over the new gameplay
I don't even necessarily agree, I personally really don't see anything about TR2 that makes it interesting enough to be considered peak of anything, but then again you said it's your personal opinion and you seem to value convenience and aesthetical variety rather than mechanic depth or gameplay variety so I guess that makes sense. Very interesting that you rate 5 so highly though, I've been seeing a lot more supporters of it lately, and it's convinced me to not stop Tomb Raider right after 4 and atleast try chronicles.
Eh, I think the Rome and Russia levels are decent. I replay the entire classic series from time to time but I always drop the game at Ireland though, gunless levels are the worst levels TR has to offer (including Off-shore Rig and High Security Compound from previous TRs come to mind) and VCI headquarters has too many bugs and softlocks to be enjoyable.
The wreck of Maria Doria is still one of the best Tomb Raider levels today, so I don't think it's the worst. Personally I think Angel of Darkness takes that title, simply because it's unfinished and never will be.
Yeah 2 is easily the worst, but even then it's still worth playing I think.
What makes 2 bad compared to the others?
>t. only played Tomb Raider 1 as a kid and the 2013 reboot
this basically answers your question:
for me personally, it's a bit more complicated than that. I actually thing both TR1 and 2 are the least interesting of the classics. But TR1 gets points for the novelty of being the first to introduce the foundations of the series in the first place, and having some genuinely outstanding level in St.Francis Folly, Palace of Midas, Cistern, Tomb of Tihocan even, and some Egypt levels, but I'm biased against Egypt levels so I can't help you there.
I didn't understand why I liked TR2 more at first. I think the first level really gave the impression that "This is going to be a harder and more varied game" And while Venice definitely hit it out of the park with first impressions. And you can tolerate the obviously increased enemies at first since the game is dropping guns and ammo everywhere...Once I personally got to the underwater levels...the amount of enemies just started to DRAG a lot, it felt like they were constantly getting in the way of exploration, rather than serving the purpose they did in the last game, of interfering with platforming, therefore the goal of kill was to clear a path for you to safely platform, rather than fight the enemies in an of themselves.
Another thing I'd say is...it felt like there was just waaaaaay less platforming in general, is that just me? Like until Tibet, I couldn't remember that many deliberate platforming sequences like the fire room in Palace of Midas (yes I know there's a "fire" room equivalent in TR2, but you can mostly just swim under it, and it wasnt as challenging as the TR1 one) It was more so a focus on traps rather than platforming, which IS a good thing, and something I wanted dearly in TR1...but playing TR2...I've realized everything is less threatening due to no save crystals...the traps don't feel like something I have to get right in a sequence, and more so something I have to get lucky at once or twice...there's a lot to say about TR2 vs TR1...
I like Venice and Opera a lot, they feel like classic Heather but too much enemies.
I like how much it commits to the underwater exploration; as in it feels like a long process with many steps, but it does drag on for too long and half of the levels are dull and cramped up with linear corridors... that really highlight why Heather > Neal. I do love The Deck though, it's large and open and fun to explore.
Most of the China stuff bores me, sadly. I just don't find the setting exciting.
I can't find the graphic comparing numbers of enemies killed per game, but 2 is the worst of the original games.
>I like Venice and Opera a lot, they feel like classic Heather but too much enemies.
I like how much it commits to the underwater exploration; as in it feels like a long process with many steps, but it does drag on for too long and half of the levels are dull and cramped up with linear corridors... that really highlight why Heather > Neal. I do love The Deck though, it's large and open and fun to explore.
Most of the China stuff bores me, sadly. I just don't find the setting exciting.
I can't find the graphic comparing numbers of enemies killed per game, but 2 is the worst of the original games.
This entire spiel basically perfectly echoes my thoughts. I liked the beginning, Venice especially, I'm not completely sure whether it's due to the novelty, but to be fair, a lot of things in Venice can still be done out of order. And the boat puzzle is GENUINELY genius and great use of a first time New mechanics (vehicles). I liked Opera house just because of how big it was, and how surprised I was to realize how intertwined and connected it was, and how many secret layers it had. Despite it being largely linear, that linearity was offset by hardcore committing to Tomb Raider's unique Puzzle Box level design that reveals how huge and complex the level is.
But, as much as I liked the underwater exploration, just for committing to it...it really did fricking drag man holy shit, idk how the underwater levels ended up feeling like the longest. And I'm not even going to lie, the underwater navigation wasn't even hard. Tomb of Tihocan, at the end, had harder water navigation. More often than not it was just tense due to more water enemies (which was more annoying than fun) or timed switch and lever sequences. But it's really around this time you start to feel how linear levels are, they don't loop or interconnect as interestingly either.
On top of still having the problem I encountered in TR1, of feeling too simple. Yes it's (slightly) harder but still simple.
luds gate guy also made temple of xian?
based
is temple of Xian a good level or something? to me Venice is the best level in Tomb Raider so far...but then again it's literally one of the first levels so that isn't exactly a good look for TR2...
Yea its a good one, very long and hard but in a good way. If you liked Venice the best i don't think you'll like it as much cos its not that same kind of inventive with the boat puzzle and the inside-outside dynamic, Xian is like just the TR basics of jumping and avoiding traps but dialed up to really test you.
Also it looks great, it announces the new change of texture and model style for the endgame really boldly. I would say its the best looking of any of the TR games
damn, I was planning on dropping tomb raider after Tibetan foothalls because of how ridiculous that last stretch backtracking was, but I've now realized that all the levels I disliked were Neal's levels lmao. Now that I know the last stretch of the game are Heather's levels, I might actually go through with it to see if I'll like it.
What's with her lips? Are they naturally like that or does she apply brown lipstick.
>white people realizing for the first time that the words doesn't completely revolve around them and that people can naturally have big lips without makeup.
White woman don't wear brown lipstick willingly. It clashes with their skin, and Lara is an adventure, if you've ever worn makeup, or talked to somebody who has, you'd realize how fricking annoying and obnoxious it would be to wear it during any intense physical activity, and it's not like Lara is chilling in the gym or something, she's constantly outside either in the wild, or underwater too. It would be INSANE and absurdly vain to still wear makeup under all those circumstances. Plus, Lara doesn't seem like the type who's actually that concerned with her looks.
Lara is simply not white. She looks like an unironic mutt, or Columbian or something along those lines. Her lips are obviously natural If you've met anybody who's not pale white. And her skin colour is more Mediterranean colour than straight white. It's just because the company TR was released with is racist and capitalistic as frick, so they only take the safe route and made them change Lara's name to be white British as frick that there's any confusion. I'm pretty sure she was first designed to be Hispanic and they never actually changed her facial design too much, just her name and/or clothes a bit.
Personally, I like it. Lara ends up having an incredibly unique look that stands out against all the pale white, or blonde white females that PLAGUE videogames. And no Lara since has been as charming and *expressive* as Classic Lara.
When I try to get sexy Lara pics in an AI image generator I always specify that she's latina in the params
fricking awful. just stop.
>AI coomer is a fricking idiot
pottery
>White woman don't wear brown lipstick willingly.
You've clearly forgotten 90's UK fashion
>pale white, or blonde white females that PLAGUE videogames..
That's a Jap game thing, because the Japs see blonde hair as the default for Americans, Europeans and Russians.
>You've clearly forgotten 90's UK fashion
pics or didn't happen?
just google 90s brown lipstick, lazy dipshit
Pretty sure it's lipstick, in later games with her more detailed look her lips are more reddish and also you can see eyeliner.
>in later games with her more detailed look her
the later games don't even include the original creator of the character Toby Gard. God you guys are so fricking dumb lmao. AOD was the WORST tomb raider by far, and her face isn't even that mucu more detailed, just longer, and less cartoonish.
Toby Gard was in LAU.
as a fricking writer and consultant you disingenuous moron, he wasn't creating the games or designing the character any longer. how the frick is everybody such a disingenuous moron? does nobody at all think or do research before they speak? wtf? this shouldn't even be a debate because there's nothing complex or nuanced to it.
>While initially hired as a creative consultant, his work became "hands on" during the production and eventually included Lara's visual redesign, overseeing character design and creation, co-writing the story, designing and implementing parts of the character movement system, and directing the cinematics.[4]
Shut the frick up
source this or it doesn't fricking mean anything. He only had any involvement with some of the audio logs, and I think he also had some involvement with the camera in Underworld.
His wikipedia article with a link to his linkedin.
okay then why does the Wikipedia on the actual LAU games say otherwise? That he didn't redesign her character and only acted as a writing consultant? Even if I give you that, it's not like it matters, since he went against the first reason he left Tomb Raider in the first place (because Lara was too sexualized) and unironically allowed it to be even worse in the LAU games, she legit wears a crop top, a swimsuit that rides her ass. And he even created the butt camera that zooms in on her but when she sprints. If I attribute all this to Toby, or his acceptance of it. It still goes against classic Lara and his complaint of her depiction as a sex icon. It also goes in favour of my argument that all the Lara's past classic Lara are actually nothing like Lara. They're just cosplayers wearing her clothes or name.
I think he never was against her being sexy, he just didn't want it to be her main feature. Or he could change his opinion in the matter, it was 10 years between the original and legend.
>Or he could change his opinion in the matter, it was 10 years between the original and legend.
yeah, that was my point.
but do you seriously find it realistic that Lara would wear makeup throughout any of her adventures? Where she's constantly diving underwater, rolling on the ground, making tense jumps, backflipping, ledge hanging, touching dusty artifacts and levers? It just doesn't make sense to me. Especially because her face doesn't look white anyway, and she doesn't look to have makeup anywhere else. I'd be fine with the LAU "redesign" if everybody wouldn't pretend that just because she wears clothes vaguely similar to the classic Lara that actually makes her more true a Lara than the reboots, even though the daddy issues and "I can't believe I le killed somebody..." ALL began with her. It feels like nobody actually cared about what Lara is. Beyond the surface level characteristics of her looking hot, and having identifiable clothes.
Reboot Lara only looks so drastically different because she exists on a totally different generation from the two prior, where cartoony, non detailed looks, weren't allowed any longer. Just like classic Lara largely looks the way she does, because she was born in a time of "strong woman" and undetailed looks.
Mind you, I don't like Reboot Lara, I only care about the games part of games. And I simple associate classic Lara with the classic games, so I like her. LAU and Reboots however? Are so much different and less unique games, that they exist in the same mind space for me. All that's different is aesthetic, and I already said I care about gameplay over everything.
and LAU is trash
AOD remake when?
I just want to explore the club again.
What, no. 3 is worse. Dunno why you're excluding 5 tho?
Chronicles is peak kino. It shits all over Last Revelation, that game almost became nauseating near the end.
ok buddy, let's keep that contrarianism down a bit.
I prefer Chronicles to TLR but they're both shit.
>What, no. 3 is worse.
boring and unuanced take. try again.
3 sucks, deal with it.
nah, you're just unironcially stupid lmao:
but the convenient thing about stupidity, is that everyone else is so equally stupid that they validate and protect dogshit and shallow opinions, because that can't come up with anything more than that either.
what absolutely sucks about III?
NTA but the Aldwych level can go frick itself. Even though I like the London section, that one level is easily the worst level of the classic Tomb Raider games.
this level looks so unique and based. I can't wait, the recent resurgence of dark souls has convinced people that "hard = good" and people actually like difficulty. But this is a facade. Something I've learned in recent years is that the vast majority of people don't actually play the games. They play with a guide, or look up builds of what is the easiest way to play. Run around, find the best weapon, throw on the best Armour, and just run through the game with health bars half the screen. I remember my first playthrough of dark souls was lonely and harsh. I only looked up "beginner dex weapons" or "how to use fire keeper soul" at the very very very beginning of the game because I wasted a fire keeper soul at first, so I just reset it. By the time I was at anor londo, my health bar was still barely a quarter of my screen, my stamina bar, even smaller, I struggled with every single fight and enjoyed the game for that. Because I genuinely enjoyed difficulty and hadn't known yet. Mind you, dark souls 1 has given me some of the most unfair experiences in gaming, but it's difficulty was more than just that. It was deliberate, and has a point. Meaning.
That has been lost nowadays, and nobody actually appreciates difficulty, what they tell themselves is difficulty is actually "action" dark souls was difficult due to navigation and enemy encounters that had to be solved almost like a puzzle to conserve estus. Now, it's just about avoiding cool looking attacks, and people are satisfied with that. I've gone on a bit of a tangent, but my point is that "this is too difficult" is a cheap criticism, and will always be one of the easiest and most convenient "criticisms" because people don't ACTUALLY like difficulty, and that IS a bias, that used to blind people (journos specifically) to what makes a game good. Aldwych might end up being unfair, but I still never hear any actual criticisms of TR3 that isn't just "it was too much for me"
You're the most pretentious gay I've seen in a long time. Stop sniffing your own farts and get the frick out of here.
I don't know what to tell you other than...that's your problem? Seriously. Any response I make, no matter how justified, will just be twisted and recharacterized to fit into your narrow and comfortable world view, why bother? You're not even intelligent or self aware enough to realize how the way you speak contributes to a self fulfilling prophecy of "pretentiousness" I'll start by deconstructing your words. What relevance does "pretentiousness" have? The definition seems to say "trying to give an impression of being of being greater or of more importance than actually is" If I were to express my intent, you would just deny it, which makes no sense since you aren't me, but your subjective perception will affirm that anyway so it doesn't matter. If I say "I'm just being honest about my feeling and thoughts, and not trying to make it anymore than that" you won't engage with that, and just default to your subjective perception again. If I say "what is of greater importance here? I never said anything was of great importance, or intelligence? Prove how anything I've said is wrong?" You'll just refer back to your subjective perception that it's wrong, or inflated importance because you feel like it is.
If you haven't realized it yet...Nothing you've actually said...actually mean anything. Everything is self referential, and Inconsiderate of reality. Essentially it means you CANNOT be wrong because you say or think you aren't. This is obviously stupid because if truth becomes that arbitrary, then nothing has any actual reasoning for meaning what it does. Nothing actually indicates or references anything independent of your mind. Which my being objectively is, if not for the fact that I have my own thoughts that run counter to yours, then because I express thoughts you fundamentally view as adjective would suggest they're not of your own mind. Meaning truth and reality would be independent of your mind and you can be objectively wrong.
Which you are.
everything you just wrote can be applied to you
>I'm right and you're wrong.
You misunderstood it then. And there's no further point in explaining it because ironically you did it again "Everything you could say could be applied to you" Isn't an argument. It is an interpretation. An opinion. I directly referenced what you said, and why it wasn't substantial or relevant, and the problem with the way you engaged with me objectively. Nothing about "I'm right your wrong" was said, you just doubled down on the stupid subjective pretentious thing. It was about a specific way you acted and engaged. If that many words wasn't enough to get the point across, and you couldn't even offer anything I said that was actually wrong, beyond appealing to your subjective interpretation. Then there's no point saying much else.
It's a dark souls 1 maze with shortcuts and shit.
The atmosphere is godly.
Dark Souls 1 before Dark Souls 1. It sounds like a masterpiece. No wonder people got so hardcore filtered by it. There are people that to this day complain about blighttown despite it being one of the most complex levels with the best use of verticality. Same with the depths, just without the verticality. I've also heard people complain about demon ruins, the single only level in Dark Souls 3 that's actually hard to navigate. I've learned that people don't actually like the unique and slow paced difficulty of the original Dark souls and just want to flashy action shit. Anything that's actually hard and not straightforward? Souls fans, and normies whine about to high heavens.
>There are people that to this day complain about blighttown
on consoles, the framerate was so abyssal, Neogaf started the petition for a PC release.
>people complain about demon ruins
Catcombs and demon ruins are just elden ring filler tier chalice dungeons.
London
don't bother. do you genuinely think anybody on Ganker has the capacity to articulate their thoughts in depth? two things you should always think about when engaging with the average person. If they have adopted the easy, convenient, and popular opinion. Then they likely haven't considered it thoughtfully, they're just like everyone else, and the average human being lacks both critical thinking and logic, and is immensely biased. There is research to prove this, but if you're not moronic, you don't even need research to know this. morons that are unthinking and bad faith individuals will try to spin this in this incredibly deceitful way to create a narrative: "so anything popular = le bad!? hah! I gotcha! because intuition tells us all that popular can't be bad, even tho that's a fundamental logical fallacy!" No where was it said that popular = bad. Just that popular often = no critical thinking, or depth. For somebody to be engaged seriously, they have to demonstrate that they've truly thought of something beyond the surface level, or introspected on themselves and why they liked or didn't like something. I'll give an example:
I dislike Devil May Cry, but understand completely why people like it. It has very cool and flashy moves that when flow together, make you feel like some sort of action hero that is in tune with your weapons and ability. But I dislike it. Because no move is actually meaningful to me. A lot of the weapons, moves, and combos are redundant, because the enemies rarely ever actually fight back and threaten you in such a way that compels an appropriate response. It doesn't simulate true combat of a back and forth, it is purely on the player expression front. The combat is wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle.
Now. Somebody can disagree with this (they'd be hard pressed to) But at the very least you can understand and engage with what I'm saying since I've laid out clearly what is what, and why what is what. While expressing introspect.
Honestly the Arctic levels
I enjoy the Thing reference but the levels themselves are easily the worst in the game
Temple of Xian is better than any of them
The level design just really suffers from the primitive technology. More often than in 1, you're wondering what the ugly, gigantic pile of blocks in front of you is supposed to be, or what you're expected to be able to do and what not. There are spots where you have to be in the right position down to the pixel to be able to grab some ledge and you're bound to assume it's not the right way before pulling it off. It makes progress feel like a chore.
>The level design just really suffers from the primitive technology. More often than in 1, you're wondering what the ugly, gigantic pile of blocks in front of you is supposed to be, or what you're expected to be able to do and what not.
lmao what? no it doesn't? navigation honestly feels WAY easier overall in TR2 than TR1, and pointing out blocks is way more of an issue in TR1 (which isn't even an issue if you have a keen eye and aren't moronic) why do people constantly project their subjective interpretations and faults as if they're legitimate criticism of anything? Do they not understand how meaningless and arbitrary they make any discussion or analysis? Like this can't even be validated or substantiated in anyway beyond appealing to oneself?
Look bro. You're just bad at navigation, TR2 is the LEAST problematic for figuring out where to jump, because the levels are so distinctly familiar, due to largely being set in many modernish places, rather than caves and jungles that can be a lot more vague. I'd honestly say TR2 pulls a lot more tricks with levers, switches, and block puzzles rather than straight platforming and "jumps" to make. I can't remember a time I didn't know where to jump to, it was a lot more about execution than navigation.
this is a midwit take, and a shallow one at that.
also I love how "primitive" technology yields more complex and elaborate level design than anything modern that isn't dark souls. It's almost like subjective perception of "outdated" are wholly meaningless and lazy words for people that can't articulate themselves well.
holy wall of text, batman
Tom Braider was never good.
Yeah Tom Braider was always garbage.
Nobody likes Tom and his Braids.
i liked 1 and 2 a whole lot. hated 3 and 4. just couldn't grt into them.
Play Project Eden, the real successor to the original Tomb Raider set in a cyberpunk world.
Core Design really dropped the ball by making only one of the characters a female. Should have been an all girl team like Spice Girls. One asian, one black, one latino and one white anglo. It would have saved the studio.
Project Eden is shit tho
damn? what is project eden like? I've never played or heard of it before? is it truly like Tomb Raider? I heard the Core team was barely the original people that worked on tomb raider by Angel of Darkness...so I don't know how much of that actual original core soul would still be intact in this game, but I'm interested and curious nonetheless.
It's nothing like TR, it's not even a good game.
Technically, the robot is also female.
homie really do be replying to every post with whole essays on a fricking mongolian basket weaving forums.
Ayy lmao. Take your meds.
yes, but the problem is the first level is brilliant, possibly the best TR level of the series.
Venice or Great Wall? Because the great Wall is...okay but Venice is pretty standout for the use of the boat and everything.
TR2 and 3 used throw all their tricks in first levels to lure the player in, that's why China and India are best levels, respectfully.
India especially, there are just not that many immersive soulful low poly jungles in PS1 era. I wish some indie devs would make something similar, but in broader scale for modern computers.
India is shit.
TLDR: the thread.
You will never fool marketers into thinking people still care about old TR with your thread spam
You will never get anoher old style TR
You will never get old Lara back
You will never get laid
It's fricking over for you moron
>You will never fool marketers into thinking people still care about old TR with your thread spam
You will never get anoher old style TR
You will never get old Lara back
You will never get laid
It's fricking over for you moron
I know this all already. I've been in virtually every Tomb Raider thread. The fact that people defend LAU so adamantly despite its gameplay being closer to Reboots than the classics says it all already. Tomb Raider will never be Tomb Raider again. I talk about these games because I am currently playing them and find them abundantly interesting. It seems most people simply don't care though? Nobody actually wants to discuss anything everybody is threatened by words and drenched in insecurity? But nobody calls it out because everyone else is the same, they don't care and can't be bothered to engage in depth discussion. I know it all, I know my words won't reach anybody. To some degree I say it for me. Because I simply need to get my thoughts out somewhere at times, and because...I just imply wish to speak. I have too much to say, and when you want to say something, what do you do? You speak, even if nobody wants to hear. It may not be wholly rational but...what can I do except express myself as I am, as honestly and directly as I can...
kys
>You will never get anoher old style TR
Why would anyone want this? There hasn't been a good AAA game in years.
Why did LAU Lara mindbreak one anon so hard?
Her games are great.
Just because you find the character hot doesn't make the games good.
I love coming into these threads just to see decrepit boomers seethe about LAU
if you had actually paid attention to a single thread, you'd know that ive already said multiple times that I'm a zoomer who just started playing Tomb Raider recently and have already multiple times expressed progress in TR2. The flimsy narratives you need to come up with to cope and rationalize reality are pathetic, and indicative of an inability to actually engage with reality as it is because it would mean confronting the idea that the games you so thoughtlessly hold onto, might not be as good as you think they are.
Medications.
I never liked it and I'm an oldgay. Venice was nice, the rest plainly annoyed me. The focus from moody exploration to action bothered me.
HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA HORSE SEX LARA
Best post in the thread.
I replayed the ps1 games recently and they held up really well, once you got used to the controls
I can't remember which of the classic TR games it was but one of them they were real dicks about the level design, e.g. deliberately hiding the way to progress in camera blind spots. That was the worst. It just wasn't fricking fun to constantly have the game grind to a halt as you try to find which awkward to see spot they placed the switch, passageway, etc. in order to move on.
Probably 3
sounds like a skill issue, paying attention to your surrounding, and having a keen awareness of things is a fundamental principle of exploration and navigation. often in the end you end up realizing you didn't find it because you simply weren't actually as engaged and perceptive with the game as you thought, because games rarely ever push you that far to engage with them and give you full focus, attention and thought. No wonder most games are linear cinematic corridors like God of War where the NPC companion tells you the puzzle solution, or open worlds where you literally CANNOT get lost if you walk in any direction. Exploration and Adventure is lost, and filters too many people because they think it's "slow" and just "not fun" it's always beyond me how Dark Souls ever got big, because every subsequent release has dumbed down the exploration to focus on action like the generic mainstream games it once claimed to not be.
again. skill issue. which is fine, stupidity is popular and appealed to, you'll have plenty of games that are perfect for you sensibilities...but again. skill issue
(just want to mention one last thing. it's funny how he mentions the "camera" hiding things, which doesn't make sense, since you can face any direction, and look at everything with the l1 button. But also, because in real life the human perspective is inherently limited by first person, and exploration requires considering the fact that you don't have a birds eye view and can't fly, or else exploration with be trivial. It's like they can't comprehend how the fact of having natural limitations contributes to how we experience thing, becoming more important)
again. skill issue.
That's 3. It is the worst of the OG trilogy, it's not a bad game and i still liked it, but it's the most frustrating. That combined with the overuse of dark places because they had improved the lighting and wanted to show it off could really annoying.
The one that always felt like it had the most fair difficulty balance was 1, the checkpoints are really well spaced. 2, it's too easy honestly because you can save scum, 3, its possible to run out of saves too early in a level and have to do too much before you find another one, making getting the next two or three major areas exactly right a chore. 1 always felt just right to me.
Never played the first one but if i had to rank the games it would be 2,5,4,3.
2: Feels just like the most playable game in the franchise, not too hard and not too easy while having great settings with Venice, Nepal, China and with the right amount of supernatural stuff like the yetis.
5: Because it tells a collection of storys, it has the most intersting settings. It literally switches to a horror game mid way through when you play Lara as a child that sneaked into Ireland. Or later you are in Area51 and see an Ufo. It is also the best looking and cinematic game. It only gets shit on unjustified because it doesn't revive Lara after her death in the 4th game.
4: This is probably the game everyone means when they talk about the classic TR atmosphere and they are right. No music, only echoing footseps in ancient buildings and the feeling of isolation, loneliness but also strangley calmness. But the game only plays in egypt and it all looks pretty similair.
3: Can't remeber much just that it was dark and way too hard because the puzzles were way too convoluted and all over the map.
Bonus:
Angel of darkness is comfy once you get over the new gameplay
why didn't you rate 1?
I don't even necessarily agree, I personally really don't see anything about TR2 that makes it interesting enough to be considered peak of anything, but then again you said it's your personal opinion and you seem to value convenience and aesthetical variety rather than mechanic depth or gameplay variety so I guess that makes sense. Very interesting that you rate 5 so highly though, I've been seeing a lot more supporters of it lately, and it's convinced me to not stop Tomb Raider right after 4 and atleast try chronicles.
I didn't rated 1 because i never came to play it. But i played Anniversary and liked it.
I think Tomb Raider really shines when you enter a room and it's a quite big room and there's bunch of platforming to be had.
And then you solve a puzzle and open some door and 12 apes and 3 tigers attack you all at once
>PUZZLES could be here
So, is Embracer doing anything with the IP?
What are some games with theses graphics nowaday?
>automatically disregarding Chronicles out of the classic lineup so the argument can stand
Noice
Eh, I think the Rome and Russia levels are decent. I replay the entire classic series from time to time but I always drop the game at Ireland though, gunless levels are the worst levels TR has to offer (including Off-shore Rig and High Security Compound from previous TRs come to mind) and VCI headquarters has too many bugs and softlocks to be enjoyable.
3 was by far the worst. It was a buggy mess. 2 is actually the best.
>t. Played all the classic games at release
>shitting on TR4
Let me guess, filtered by Cairo?