View Full Version : Is Anniversary going to be as short as Legend and AoD?

26th Feb 2007, 19:27
I have bought and played every TR game as soon as it was released. I regret doing that with AoD and Legend. 10 hours of gameplay just isn't worth $50. I am seriously thinking of waiting until Anniversary hits the bargain baskets unless there is some concrete proof that it will be a full length game. Anyone heard how big and long Anniversary will be?

26th Feb 2007, 19:59
This has not been announced. I didn't play AoD, so I can't comment on the length, I do hope Anniversary (And all future TR games is longer than Legend), but they did try to add some replayability to Legend. It took a good bit of time to unlock all the XBox 360 Achievements for example.

Now I wish Eidos would announce an XBox 360 version of Anniversary. I would love to try my hand at unlocking another 1,000 points worth of achievements... :)

27th Feb 2007, 10:46
I have played from tr2 till legend and i must admit it took shorter timeplaying legend and aod then it did playing the earlier games

27th Feb 2007, 10:57
Actually the last three games were pretty short, although at least chronicles was more challenging. The days of long Tomb Raider games it seems is gone, Lara just flies through the levels these days, even though they are bigger, CD is just going to have to learn to make it harder for us to progress, more traps and challenges, nothing wrong with a bit of backtracking either. Anniversary will be longer than Legend, but l am not expecting it to be as long as the original. l believe the estimate is 15 hours which l would be happy with, longer to really explore and find everything

27th Feb 2007, 15:30
so what the hell do you mean with the title?

Is Anniversary going to be as short as Legend and AoD?

Don't you mean:

Is Anniversary going to be as short as Legend or AOD?

I mean, AOD was not short, it had 28 good long levels! and it had 20 levels more than Legend, so what do you mean about the title?:confused: :mad:

27th Feb 2007, 15:49
I mean, AOD was not short, it had 28 good long levels! and it had 20 levels more than Legend, so what do you mean about the title?:confused: :mad:

long levels? AOD? (good?) huh?! only a few of them were long-ish, the rest? very short.
2nd, 20 is just a number. all that matters if these levels are complex or long.
a game with 4 levels can be considerd very long if it's levels are difficult, complex and long.
TR2 had 17 levels (+ home sweet home) and it was a lot longer, yet, 28/29>17. ;)

if I'm not mistaken, CD promised the fans that TRA will both longer and more difficult then TRL. the question is how much, but I'm blindly-trusting CD since they did such a great job with TRL...

Mangar The Dark
27th Feb 2007, 16:33
See, that's why I never buy new games. Or, if I do, I make a point of reading as many reviews as possible in advance, because reviews will often comment of the length of a game, and then you know whether or not you want to spend a lot of money on it.

To me, NO game is worth $50. That's an absurd price for a game. My limit is about $20 for a REALLY good game. I bought AOD for $5, and really enjoyed it. But I probably wouldn't have been as happy if I spent $50.00.

So with Anniversary, I plan to do the same thing-- I'll read the reviews, and then decide if I want to wait until the price drops to $20 (if the reviews all agree that it's excellent and long), or if I want to wait until it costs $5 (if it's bug-ridden and short.)

27th Feb 2007, 16:46
Well, I don't remember AOD as short, but it was such a frustrating play that maybe it seemed longer than it was. :scratch:

Some games are worth fifty bucks if there's good replay. The replay for DMC3 is pretty insane with the style changes. I don't remember being disappointed in paying $50 for Onimusha 3, but then that may have had more to do with my predilection for Samanosuke. :D Nah, the minigames added.

The problem is costume changes aren't enough to insure good replay. Added gameplay elements or additional gameplay are what mean something to this gamer. Legend was far too short as it was and all the "extras" merely wanted you to play it faster? **** Meh, Legend just sits on my shelf, whereas my other games come off every couple of Saturdays when I have a little time to kill.

I've reserved GoW2, and doubt I'll be disappointed I paid full price. But there's definitely a risk when you do that, even if you read all the pre-release media. Legend looked *really* good pre-release, but I found myself very disappointed in it as a Tomb Raider game and wish I had my fifty bucks back.

doctor willard
27th Feb 2007, 18:46
i admire all tomb raider games, ever since the first one came out when i was 5 and played them over and over... but AOD was one that got me slightly scared. its length was ok, but 1-5 were the proper long ones. AOD annoyed me because 1. when you pushed the left analoyge stick, the began to walk then jog, not jog instantly to run away from danger... and 2. NO PISTOLS!! the only way to get pistols was using the cheat disc...:( legend was really cool, dispiste the mansion layout changing. but it was fairly long and hopefully TA will be a good long game.

27th Feb 2007, 20:37
IMO the question shouldn't be how long the game will last but rather how much fun you get by playing it. I had all versions of Tomb Raider and had played them all. :D To me AoD was frustrating. It had the elements of previous TR games, the storyline looked good but the horrible controls and frustrating gameplay turned me off. I had only completed this game once. It took me most of a week to do that. I doubt if I want to do that again soon.
Legend was better. I timed myself on the PS2 version and completed the game under ten hours on expert mode. :rasp: :scratch: :whistle:

I hope when TRA hit the shelves it will be between ten and twenty hours - the average length of most adventure games.

Just my two point one credit worth. :nut:

27th Feb 2007, 22:28
Everybody has their own desires and thresholds of acceptability, so what one person may think is too short is fine for another. Fun is the most important thing for me, but the duration of the fun is also important.

I waited for Legend because of the debacle that was AoD. I'm glad I did; all the reviews mentioned 7-10 hours of play to finish the entire game. My first playthrough of Last Revelation took 30+ hours, and I would have felt extremely ripped off if I'd shelled out $50 for a game I finished in 7.5 hours (which is how long it took me to play through the first time once I did get it). I'm not into multiplayer, and replaying doesn't take nearly as long because you've already figured out the puzzles, so I expect at least 15-20 hours of play from my first time through any game. Some games are incredible values because of this; I think I spent nearly 60 hours playing Deus Ex when I first got it, and the last two Elder Scrolls games have given me hundreds of hours of play time. I, too, hope this one is longer than the last one, and I'll be waiting until I've read a few reviews before I purchase. At least I'm satisfied that Crystal Dynamics can do justice to the franchise now; that's no longer an unknown factor.

27th Feb 2007, 22:52
I just remember having Legend done in three days and wanted it to last another good twenty hours. I'm really aiming for about seventeen hours. It should be a bit simpler because they already have they game's engine so they'll be able to work harder on things like enviroments (sp?) and levels. Ugh I hope it's longer, and A LOT harder :D.

27th Feb 2007, 22:54
I hope that one day, the Tomb Raider games will exceed 30 hours again. I love the epic games that are fun and when you look back at the first levels you think, "Wow, how young I was back then..." lol, I just got finished with one of the best games I have ever played, I recommend it to everyone interested in long gameplay, it is at least 30 hours. It's called Okami and it is for PS2.

Back to Tomb Raider...

One thing I wouldn't want to make the game longer is constant backtracking. For this reason, Tomb Raider: Revelation was a royal pain in the ***. I loathed the motorcycle levels, too. Too frikkin dark! (okay, so, a lot of the game was really dark, and I understand it was because of tombs, but, w/e, green light isn't exactly luminous!)

Geez, I got really off track!

27th Feb 2007, 23:13
One thing I wouldn't want to make the game longer is constant backtracking. For this reason, Tomb Raider: Revelation was a royal pain in the ***. I loathed the motorcycle levels, too. Too frikkin dark! (okay, so, a lot of the game was really dark, and I understand it was because of tombs, but, w/e, green light isn't exactly luminous!)

Agreed. :thumbsup:

Tomb Raider 3 also had a lot of back and fro-ing because of numberous keys and switches, hope we won't have them scattered in different ends of the level just to extend gameplay.

28th Feb 2007, 04:25
l have to admit l found the backtracking in Tomb Raiders 3 and 4 annoying as well, but l little bit would not be as bad. If they combine say the first 3 Peru locations (after the main door closes) into one big level, and then when we need to find the cogs we could search where we had already been as well as the new area.

28th Feb 2007, 12:22
From what I am hearing, people don't think Anniversary is going to be much longer than Legend, if longer at all. I think that is pretty disappointing. Even more disappointing is that consumers think that full price for 10 or 15 hours is ok.

Someone mentioned that 10 hours is "normal" for an adventure game. What game? I consider Zelda to be the benchmark for franchise adventure games, both in quality and length. I don't know that any of the Tomb Raider games has quite reached that high but 1, 2 and 3 were pretty damn close.

To tell the truth. I would rather pay $30 to take my family to a new TR 2 hour movie than pay $50 for another 10 hour game.

28th Feb 2007, 16:36
Tomb Raider was unique among adventure games IMO. I can't think of another game where the concept of "OK, now what do I do?" is so prominently featured. Most adventure games are much more linear, puzzles are simple fetch the item and use. Exploration may be a part, but never on the level of the PSX Tomb Raiders where exploration was mandatory to complete the game. In other games, exploration might get you upgrades, but is usually not required to find the exit.

When Legend was reduced to this straight pipe style of gameplay, the length suffered. If Anniversary's design is also this, it will be short.

doctor willard
28th Feb 2007, 20:22
Ciro is a dark place anyways. ive been to it, and its only light when your on the roof tops in the day.

1st Mar 2007, 10:11
They say "Get ready for at least 15 hours of gameplay" - do the math, and that's longer than TRL's gameplay time. Add on top that you will want to go everywhere, what with the new areas and so many different ways of getting to the end of the level.