Tomb Raider: The Games

|ZiR|

New member
I think Tomb Raider might be just a tiny bit more fun than Indy, or at least The Emperor's Tomb.

Though it's been years since I last played a TM, my friend and I played the hell out of one the of PS games back in the day. I remember she had two guns, and two is always cooler than one; plus I seem to recall something about a T-Rex enemy. (Might be mixing my games up, idk.)

TM had an okay soundtrack, too. Nothing like classic orchestral style music to accompany rapid gunfire. :gun: One thing that does strike me as odd is that they never tried to make her look like a real person, even in the later games. I guess Lara Croft is meant to be more of a cartoon character than a human.

Still. I have to go with the original tomb raider: Indiana Jones. His games span various genres, unlike TR, which keeps me coming back to them, whereas I haven't touched a TR game since the late 90s.
 

Perhilion

New member
*sigh* what a pointless question. you know everyone will say Indy...except me! Lara dominates Indy when it comes to gaming. Now, comparing their treasure hunting skills-I think it would be a tie.
 
|ZiR| said:
One thing that does strike me as odd is that they never tried to make her look like a real person, even in the later games. I guess Lara Croft is meant to be more of a cartoon character than a human.

Heh, not really. They definitely made her more realistic for Tomb Raider: Legend. Toned down her bust, and heightened the level of realism a good deal. And from what I've seen of Anniversary (haven't played it yet myself), it looks even more realistic.

...she still does crazy acrobatics, though. That much hasn't changed. And in fact, some of her acrobatics have gotten even more outlandish in the newer entries.
 

|ZiR|

New member
The Tingler said:
What the heck's a TM?
It's a typo. I meant "TR," as in "Tomb Raider." Sorry. I really need to read my posts before I hit the submit button. :eek:

ResidentAlien said:
Heh, not really. They definitely made her more realistic for Tomb Raider: Legend. Toned down her bust, and heightened the level of realism a good deal. And from what I've seen of Anniversary (haven't played it yet myself), it looks even more realistic.

I did not know that. Interesting.
 

Ska

New member
Anniversary is just as addicting. The graphics and engine of Legend, with the story and locations of the original. It's the perfect Tomb Raider.

And let's be honest, Indy games haven't been that great. Sure FOA is very good, but the rest are "meh". Both Infernal Machine and Emperor's Tomb have their high points...but the low's outweigh the high's. Although I'll never tire of throwing bad guys off cliffs and roofs in ET...

That's not saying that the Tomb Raider series is flawless. TR3 and Chronicles bored the hell out of me. Taking Lara out of the tombs and into urban locations is not my style of TR.

And (even though it had a lot of urban locations) I've enjoyed what I've played of Angel of Darkness. I just recently bought it, after being scared of the horrible reviews. Sure the gameplay isn't very tight, but the story is kinda compelling. It has more of a Dan Brown novel feel than an adventure feel.

For what it's worth (which is nothing):
I'd give the TR games an average of 8.0.
I'd give the Indy games an average of 7.0.

Both have room for improvement (see Uncharted: Drake's Fortune for setting the bar). If they made an Indy game in the style of Uncharted (meaning making it more of a movie...since that IS what Indiana Jones games are inspired by), the Indy games could be a force to be reckoned with.
 

Perhilion

New member
ResidentAlien said:
Yeah and Tomb Raider: Legend is my favorite of those I've played. Played through the entire game in under a week; absolutely addicting.
wow. that's quite a contrast of the general opinion of the TR fan community (myself included). It's fun, but just doesn't feel TR to me.
Amen to the boredom of TR. I've only played a few minutes worth but it was ultimatly boring.
Which one did you play? If it was one of the classics (old ones) then you didn't play enough. That "boredom" is what us TR fans love so much about the classics: you get to thoroughly explore your environment, having to figure out puzzles on your own instead of having your hand held like so many games do these days. And the slow pace is almost always interrupted by some new enemy or trap. Trust me, if you like Indy (but not so much that you damn any other treasure hunter to hell) then you should give one of the classics TRs, say TRII (seen as the best), a shot. You'll like it. Unless you're into the fast-paced run and gun bloody-gore fest games have become.
Nah, Infernal Machine all the way.
Ironic, since that game is basically TR with Indy's skin on it. You played The Last Revelation? Wrong TR to start with. It's very hardcore, even some TR fans don't like it. I suggest trying Chronicles to ease into it, or if you want the best experience play TR I or II.
 

Perhilion

New member
how can we possibly know that? we know next to nothing about it. just because it has good graphics, physics, etc, doesn't mean it'll be fun. if it's ever released.
 

DiscoLad

New member
Perhilion said:
how can we possibly know that? we know next to nothing about it. just because it has good graphics, physics, etc, doesn't mean it'll be fun. if it's ever released.

That's enough for me to make the assumption
 

Perhilion

New member
DiscoLad said:
She's not realistic at all!
No archeologist runs around in tight daisy dukes and a skimpy tank-top...
and no archaeologist runs around in a leather jacket with a bullwhip fighting Nazis for treasure.
 
-Jones- said:
One way or the other, her breasts are too big.


No. There are many women who are naturally well-endowed. Many more-so than Lara, especially in her latest adventures.

Personally, I don't hold to the adage that bigger is better, but she's not absurdly anatomically incorrect.
 
Last edited:

-Jones-

Member
ResidentAlien said:
No. There are many women who are naturally well-endowed. Many more-so than Lara, especially in her latest adventures.

Personally, I don't hold to the adage to that bigger is better, but she's not absurdly anatomically incorrect.

Well, yes. It was made for the younger demographic in order to get their attention. Now, they are rounded and more natural, but they're a little too big ;]. OK, for some it's sexy, but for me it's a little over the top ;].
 
Top