PDA

View Full Version : Tomb Raider Reviews



SethKoopa
6th Apr 2007, 23:36
I for one have read several reviews on the Tomb Raider games. In fact, it was PC Gamer's review on TR3 that got me interested in the games in the first place. They gave it 90% and credited it for its challenge, action and scope.

However, they TOTALLY let me down with their Last Revelation review. They did a head-to-head review, comparing LR to Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine, a game originally for the Nintendo 64. And they claimed Indiana Jones was better, when even from the screenshots you can deduce that the game is below par in standard to Tomb Raider, with nowhere near as much spirit. 91% to Indy, only 86% to Lara, claiming that LR was a good game, and that's why it has such a good score, but it was a score with a warning that the series were in danger of getting stale.

This review shattered my respect for PC Gamer forever.:mad:

Then I read the Angel of Darkness review just a week after I got it for my birthday, and was crushed to see how bad a game PC Gamer found it, giving it a record-breaking 45% (Chronicles got 79% for lack of originality). "The legend is dead" was the tagline, and I could agree with all they said, especially that the game doesn't even feel finished. I suffered a TR identity crisis after that.:p

Tell your stories on Tomb Raider reviews you've read here.

Treeble
7th Apr 2007, 00:59
For all it's worth, Infernal Indy IS a good game, though it suffers with laggy controls.

Mertz523
7th Apr 2007, 03:22
"5 OUT OF 5 STARS"
-Maxim-

When I saw this printed on the back cover of Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness the day of release, I knew I was holding a corroded piece of garbage...

:mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

Lo
7th Apr 2007, 07:32
My older brother is an avid gamer but to my dismay, he has never even dipped his toe into the TR franchise.

He called me into his bedroom one day when I was visiting home and triumphantly declared that Angel of Darkness had been rated the worst game of the year on a gaming review TV programme - the name of which escapes me.

I was livid for the people that test these games are not nearly knowledgable nor experienced enough in every gaming genre/field to qualify in passing comment. I couldn't fathom the Thief series but that was because of my own inadequacies and not faults with the game.

Sure, AOD had it's glitches but then every game does. I just felt that the review was a total b*tch-slap and was made by some burly bloke who objected to the fact that millions of seasoned raiders could feasibly prefer a female heroine as opposed to some gun-touting, machette-weilding and one-dimensional 'Sly' Stallone type character.

Tomb Raider is the one game that can deliver a heady mix of emotions, locations, challenges, adventures, weaponry, rewards and characters along with a myriad of varying enemies (Dinosaurs, minotaurs, zombie skeletons, crocs, crows, scorpions, lions, apes, leopards, hounds, mutants, bats, humans, cyborgs, snakes, elementals, arachnids, baracudas, sharks, ghosts et al....need I continue?).

It is so much more than other games IMHO. It is varied and interesting but like everything that is great in this world, some sourpuss has to find fault with it when they have no real understanding of it. The raiders themselves are generous in their appraisals by which I mean they are more than happy to front up and admit that various elements of each game contains flaws. Just because we have a liking for the game, it doesn not necessarily follow that we will defend it at all costs but these critics are not worthy of comment for they have a ten minute blast, have no real idea of what it's all about and they are bias.

Nothing irks me more than when someone like my own dear brother says 'Tomb Raider? It's rubbish' when he has never even sat down and played it - he just assumes it is rubbish. He may prefer strategy games in which case TR is not for him but that by no means confirms that the game is rubbish for it is anything but!

Amen :lol:

Lo
7th Apr 2007, 07:47
Just to add,

What I am trying to suggest is that maybe the game reviews ought to be left to the gamers themselves. As I said, even seasoned and avid fans of the TR series, for example, are intelligent enough to pick fault and often do so.

I myself have slated AOD and Legend on more than one occasion for their flaws in spite of loving the series as a whole. If I was asked to do a review of Hitman, for example, I would likely be tempted to say 'what a load of rubbish, I find the controls awkward and the storyline disjointed' or something along those lines and I'd likely say it as a direct result of having no affinity with the game - I would be dispassionate.

There is a big difference between objectivity and complete lack of knowledge and it strikes me that the latter applies in the case of the gaming review I spoke of in my penultimate post.

Here endeth the lesson for today :D

SethKoopa
7th Apr 2007, 11:46
Bravo, Lo! Well spoken!

I have no respect for media reviewers today. They seem to want to find a fault with everything that's perfectly fine but isn't perfect, which shouldn't matter as it has real magic in it. Then they give a full house to no-heart garbage like Borat (even though that IS a movie).

But video/computer game magazines definitely show professionalism in their reviewing. I just felt UK PC Gamer just completely crushed their standard by rewarding Indy 91%. I don't know, I'd been looking forward to a Last Revelation review and I was incredibly disappointed by PC Gamer's head-to-head review.
PC Gamer (UK): Tomb Raider 1: 93%
Tomb Raider 2: 94%
Tomb Raider 3: 90%
Last Revelation: 86%
Chronicles: 79% (really overrated in my opinion)
Angel of Darkness: 45%
I can't remember what Legend got.

BTW Lo., use the Edit button to add comments to your post rather than post in a row. I've noticed you've done that a lot and I want to save you from a chat with the moderators (not that they aren't cool people:cool: :D )

Lo
7th Apr 2007, 12:24
Hi Seth,

Thanks for the appreciation of my rant and I abide by what you say in your response - shameful in many repects - dang those useless critics.

As for my editting, I hate to edit because if I add a whole new section it shows up as an edit and people are often tempted to think I have retracted a statement but I suppose I could always add the word 'EDIT' in a future post, below the original message. I am such a neat freak that I can't abide the untidiness of an edit :lol:

Mods will be understanding I am sure, on this occasion. Afterall I don't make a habit of it. In future I will edit my posts and suffer the displeasure of seeing the words 'edited' or 'last updated' lol.

Thanks for an excellent discussion platform :thumbsup:

Lo :)

Salazar
29th Apr 2007, 18:21
Reviews suck. They gave TR2-4 really high scores back in the day, and now they act like they were just as bad as AOD and Chronicles (which even when they were released got poor-average scores)

Headache
29th Apr 2007, 18:36
Lo I swear, you say everything I think - only I can't put mine into words :o

Amen to that sister :cool:

But I do disagree with you on Thief... That's another discussion though.

LisaB1962
30th Apr 2007, 15:37
Reviews are often done by "professionals" who may or may not like the genre or franchise. Tomb Raider became very popular to hate in the last few years, but most "fans" still enjoyed the games.

Considering the reviews of "best Tomb Raider yet" that Legend got, it should be interesting to see how these reviewers will appreciate a return to (hopefully) true Tomb Raider gameplay with Anniversary. ;)

SethKoopa
23rd Jul 2008, 16:15
Well, never having played Legend outside the demo I can't judge i.e. PC Gamer's review. But based on what I've heard to be the pros and cons of the game, on this forum, the game premise just sounded highly off-putting to me. Where are the variety of enemies? The isolation?

tombraider1best
23rd Jul 2008, 23:18
well AOD was a pretty bad game it was the worst one out of them all acording to a gaming magsine i disagree completley though



good nigght all c ya tomorra

SethKoopa
31st Jan 2009, 13:01
Reviews suck. They gave TR2-4 really high scores back in the day, and now they act like they were just as bad as AOD and Chronicles (which even when they were released got poor-average scores)

LOL, indeed! Somehow people just like to 'forget' that these games did a lot for the industry at the time, and still stand strong as games. I don't like what's happening to modern PC games at all, where no game seems to require any less than a GB to run.

rg_001100
31st Jan 2009, 18:00
Well, never having played Legend outside the demo I can't judge i.e. PC Gamer's review. But based on what I've heard to be the pros and cons of the game, on this forum, the game premise just sounded highly off-putting to me. Where are the variety of enemies? The isolation?

TR:L does have its pros and cons, but it would be worth playing just to organise in your mind what you like about it, and what you don't. It's different to most other TRs, but from it you will see (if you look closely) what you like about TR and what you don't like, i.e. stuff absent, and stuff present. TR:L has a good replay/reward system, and a decent story.
The advantage of playing it for yourself is that you can see what you don't like about it - although it'd be best to go in objectively, without preconceived ideas.
Variety of enemies/isolation factors on themselves are not enough to have a good TR game, and its not those things that lack from TR:L that take it away from the "TR Feel". (Variety of enemies, because TR is not a combat game, and isolation itself doesn't give the TR feel - most FPShooters have 'isolation').

SethKoopa
31st Jan 2009, 18:26
Variety of enemies/isolation factors on themselves are not enough to have a good TR game, and its not those things that lack from TR:L that take it away from the "TR Feel". (Variety of enemies, because TR is not a combat game, and isolation itself doesn't give the TR feel - most FPShooters have 'isolation').

That's entirely your opinion, because all those things ARE important to me when playing Tomb Raider, and all contribute to the TR "feel". TR not being a combat game doesn't mean you can't have a variety of enemies, like it's always done. I think you're absoluting a little.

rg_001100
31st Jan 2009, 18:47
They're important, but they don't make a TR game. If TR:L had those features, it wouldn't be any better. There're things TR:L has that other TRs have, and it still isn't "TR-feel"...

SethKoopa
13th Feb 2009, 10:41
There're things TR:L has that other TRs have, and it still isn't "TR-feel"...

Exactly. The game lacks that "feel". We clearly have very different standards for the games. I prefer old-school raider - I don't like the direction the games are taking now.

rg_001100
13th Feb 2009, 17:34
Exactly. The game lacks that "feel". We clearly have very different standards for the games. I prefer old-school raider - I don't like the direction the games are taking now.

I'm not sure which of the CD games you have played. You skipped TR:L just because you'd heard it was bad, and then decide to bash it because of that. I know you've played TR:A, but you don't seem to comment on TR:U, which is CD's most impressive effort in matching up with Core's style. It was a game TR:L should've been... but it just seems odd to me that you are so opposed to something you have not experienced.
The "direction" the games are taking now is a better one. TR:L was bad in terms of raider feel, but TR:A was a lot closer to the Core games of the past. CD had heard the cries of a lot of the fans, and TR:U is a lot more explorative, focusing less on combat.
The only proper reason I can see for fans who were around during Core's golden days, and shameful demise, is this: unable or unwilling to adapt to the new nature of controls, and style of gameplay. CD's games are not so much worse than Core's, but they are of a different style, the controls and movement systems are vastly different (leading to different styles of environment traversal).

SethKoopa
13th Feb 2009, 23:26
I'm not sure which of the CD games you have played. You skipped TR:L just because you'd heard it was bad, and then decide to bash it because of that. I know you've played TR:A, but you don't seem to comment on TR:U, which is CD's most impressive effort in matching up with Core's style. It was a game TR:L should've been... but it just seems odd to me that you are so opposed to something you have not experienced.
The "direction" the games are taking now is a better one. TR:L was bad in terms of raider feel, but TR:A was a lot closer to the Core games of the past. CD had heard the cries of a lot of the fans, and TR:U is a lot more explorative, focusing less on combat.
The only proper reason I can see for fans who were around during Core's golden days, and shameful demise, is this: unable or unwilling to adapt to the new nature of controls, and style of gameplay. CD's games are not so much worse than Core's, but they are of a different style, the controls and movement systems are vastly different (leading to different styles of environment traversal).

Just because I'm not a fan of the games now, it doesn't mean that I am against them. I feel like one of those guys shouting 'old TR forever, down with new TR' - which would be very sad but also stupid of me, as a fan, and I hope that's not how I'm coming across. I've forgot what the argument was even about, so let's call it quits.

The_Underworld
13th Feb 2009, 23:55
That's the reason I don't touch game review magazines. Many of them are full of bias opinions. They give a game 10* if they love to play that game at home but they give some games low ratings because they just don't like the seriies or publisher

(Sometimes I find that in IGN but I never said it:whistle: )

rg_001100
14th Feb 2009, 06:15
Just because I'm not a fan of the games now, it doesn't mean that I am against them. I feel like one of those guys shouting 'old TR forever, down with new TR' - which would be very sad but also stupid of me, as a fan, and I hope that's not how I'm coming across. I've forgot what the argument was even about, so let's call it quits.
Fair enough then.


That's the reason I don't touch game review magazines. Many of them are full of bias opinions. They give a game 10* if they love to play that game at home but they give some games low ratings because they just don't like the seriies or publisher

(Sometimes I find that in IGN but I never said it:whistle: )
I think that's what reviews are for; praising the game so that it will sell well, and ranking the game against other games, splitting it up into graphics/story/gameplay/etc. to give it a score out of 10.
I've recently been impressed by the game critic Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_rCbrbzYLw) (and in part 2) he talks for a bit (about 10 minutes) about what he thinks makes a good game. One of the issues he touches upon is the reviewing and criticism of games. (the vid's worth a watch, anyway).

Natla
14th Feb 2009, 09:04
I'd read this thread but I can't cope with dark blue font on a black background. Do people feel more noticed if they use strange fonts?

rg_001100
14th Feb 2009, 09:16
I'd read this thread but I can't cope with dark blue font on a black background. Do people feel more noticed if they use strange fonts?

Look at the post dates

04-07-2007, 09:32 PM

The dark blue font was posted LONG before the dark TR theme was created, so please do not blame the user for writing in the dark blue font. (She's since stopped, now with the new theme colours :)). You do have the option to switch to vB default, though, for the General Discussion part. Some people like to use a single, different, font colour as a mark of consistancy, and signature.

It was worse with the TR:A subforum when there was no choice, and the light/cyan use in there was just painful. :hmm:

John Carter
15th Feb 2009, 13:22
Hey! An old zombie thread, resurrected by means of some dark magic or an orbital organic memory downloader coupled with a high-speed bio-growth vat or something! :eek:

PC Gamer, at least in its US print version, liked TRU quite a bit, giving it a 90% and "Editor's Choice" award in its Feb edition and naming TRU "Best Action Game of the Year" in its March edition.

The_Underworld
15th Feb 2009, 16:50
^^ I never bumped it:whistle:

tombraiderlover02
22nd Feb 2009, 15:37
My older brother is an avid gamer but to my dismay, he has never even dipped his toe into the TR franchise.

He called me into his bedroom one day when I was visiting home and triumphantly declared that Angel of Darkness had been rated the worst game of the year on a gaming review TV programme - the name of which escapes me.

I was livid for the people that test these games are not nearly knowledgable nor experienced enough in every gaming genre/field to qualify in passing comment. I couldn't fathom the Thief series but that was because of my own inadequacies and not faults with the game.

Sure, AOD had it's glitches but then every game does. I just felt that the review was a total b*tch-slap and was made by some burly bloke who objected to the fact that millions of seasoned raiders could feasibly prefer a female heroine as opposed to some gun-touting, machette-weilding and one-dimensional 'Sly' Stallone type character.

Tomb Raider is the one game that can deliver a heady mix of emotions, locations, challenges, adventures, weaponry, rewards and characters along with a myriad of varying enemies (Dinosaurs, minotaurs, zombie skeletons, crocs, crows, scorpions, lions, apes, leopards, hounds, mutants, bats, humans, cyborgs, snakes, elementals, arachnids, baracudas, sharks, ghosts et al....need I continue?).

It is so much more than other games IMHO. It is varied and interesting but like everything that is great in this world, some sourpuss has to find fault with it when they have no real understanding of it. The raiders themselves are generous in their appraisals by which I mean they are more than happy to front up and admit that various elements of each game contains flaws. Just because we have a liking for the game, it doesn not necessarily follow that we will defend it at all costs but these critics are not worthy of comment for they have a ten minute blast, have no real idea of what it's all about and they are bias.

Nothing irks me more than when someone like my own dear brother says 'Tomb Raider? It's rubbish' when he has never even sat down and played it - he just assumes it is rubbish. He may prefer strategy games in which case TR is not for him but that by no means confirms that the game is rubbish for it is anything but!

Amen :lol:

My brother was the exact same way when Angel of Darkness came out, he actually made it a point to call me and deliver the news! It was actually my brothers, but anyway . . . well, three years later when Legend came out and it got terrific reviews I brought it in and showed him and that was a moment, as a Raider, that I've savored! Same goes for Anniversary and Underworld! TOMB RAIDER RULES!