Tomb Raider PS3 review

[Shozuki]

playing this slowly. It's alright but I was hoping for more exploration and less reliance on combat. As it stands its a nice game - but just an Uncharted clone - of which Uncharted is still considerably better imo. Course I'm only 6 hours in and I understand it's a long game - so it's got time to improve...

Course the fact that the PC version is buggy as hell doesn't help, I mean the absolution fix for nvidia cards works a treat, but regardless the game needs to be played in windowed mode or you'll have missing effects regardless of the card you have. You can play the game in borderless windowed mode courtesy of this fix, courtesy of steam forumites

[saturn-gamer]

Yeah I wanted it to be longer, I did it in 3 sittings with all tombs raided & 76% complete. It's probably the shortest Tomb Raider of them all.

Legend is absolutely shorter, and Underworld too. Underworld had big stages, but there were only 4 or so of them. I didn't expect the ending already but it was there after some 10 ish hours.

TR 2013 took me about 13 hours to finish which is about on par with original TR1 and probably Anniversary. TR2 and 3 were ridiculously complex but I can't say they were really all that fun to play.

[nonny]

Im about an hour or so from completion (estimated... just left the beach) but I've gone back through all previous stages and gotten 100% completion on them which has pushed me up to 76% overall.

I dont think I would want it to be longer to be honest. Everything so far has been paced well and no stage has overstayed its welcome. I think if it was any longer it would drag in places and that would be a detriment to it all round.

I agree on the weapons though. The bow is just so damn useful that I've used that the most and as such I am missing achievements for the rifle, pistol, shotgun... so yeah once you're proficient with the bow you tend to lead with it.

I do like the linear approach to the stages as well. It helps the pace of the story and some sections are big enough to require exploration. I think perhaps they may need to tone down the survival instincts option in a harder difficulty to make that side of things tougher and requiring a keen eye. It seems to help you just a little too much, particularly where the tomb puzzles come into play.... let me figure it out.

For any sequel I'd rather they kept the same approach for the main stages but make the tombs more comprehensive and large in scale. Where there is one room in this with only one core puzzle I would want to see perhaps longer sections with cumulative puzzles unfolding... perhaps requiring certain equipment to get through correctly. Allow the player to optionally back out of a tomb and come back to it at a later stage if there was too much head-scratching etc...

Then although I like the nature of it all taking place on one sprawling island they can obviously expand on this in a sequel and have multiple locations for a bit of globe-trotting. Given the nature of the game I would take this as being a given.

Oh and yeah... multiplayer. I actually like it but with only 4 on 4, basic modes and a limited selection of maps it just isnt as feature complete as other offerings. They have a good template on which to expand and whilst I know purists will be saying its not a required feature for me its one that could actually deliver if they made it even better.

One of my favourite games this year so far and nice to see its selling well as it deserves it. A sequel on next-gen hardware? Yes please!

[MrKirov]

Finished this 100% on the weekend. A good game, very much enjoyed it, but it wasn't Tomb Raider for me.

A few more puzzles wouldn't have gone amiss, even the optional tombs were ridiculously easy. I didn't like the fact that all the secrets were signposted and that even the optional tombs had massive bells ringing to alert you of their presence.

Overall, an easy game that yet again seems to have been tailored for the casual masses. A good one however

Only a few more achievements to get, then I may sell it on. The multiplayer acheievments can **** off though, I'm not playing through that ****e to level 60 three times. I can't be arsed to do it once.

Overall, 8/10, but can't help but feel like its going to be forgotten about in the near future.

[rmoxon]

Considering how much love the game has been getting I can't see people forgetting about it any time soon.

[fallenangle]

'Overall, 8/10, but can't help but feel like its going to be forgotten about in the near future.'

Just like Legend. They were trying to persuade us back then that CD reboot was the best thing that had happened to TR in years and all the casual gamers and magazine reviews were cooing about it just like this new game. In some ways it was good, Core's TR5 had felt like just a few left over ideas cobbled together, still very playable but very tired. Then they made their big mistake: Angel of Darkness an unfinished, obviously hurried, dull thing that had promised so much but failed to deliver.

Problem is that after Legend it was clear CD had failed too. It is telling that Anniversary their second game was genuinely good but that was mostly because CD were forced to bow to the superb original TR template. Although there were exceptions when they went off on their own, as in the Lost Valley T-Rex encounter and Cistern, they were, typically, the weakest parts of the game.

Underworld I've not played yet but from what I understand it's like Legend but with some of the minor criticisms addressed.

Point is if CD's only two fully new TR games, Legend and Underworld, were so great why on earth was this latest reboot necessary? It is as much an admission of failure as it is a new direction.

TR1-4 were absolute classic games and still play superbly well if you take the time to learn the controls. Despite their age and ageing graphics their imagination and ambition still eclipse anything CD has ever done with the TR franchise.

[rmoxon]

But this is better.

The last few Tomb Raider games were decent, but they were not classics like the old titles. Hence why no one cares about them now.

This game feels like it is a modern classic.

[fallenangle]

I'm not saying it isn't a good game, by the sound of it I'd probably enjoy playing it.

But is it isn't TR any more. It is an action/adventure featuring a character they're calling Lara Croft. But she isn't the original TR Lara Croft and she's not even the Angelina Jolie-esque Lara Crystal Dynamics tried to get us to accept. The new Lara Croft and the game are both fundamentally different and IMHO it's only being called Tomb Raider for marketing reasons?

[EvilBoris]

'Overall, 8/10, but can't help but feel like its going to be forgotten about in the near future.'Point is if CD's only two fully new TR games, Legend and Underworld, were so great why on earth was this latest reboot necessary? It is as much an admission of failure as it is a new direction.

It probably is, TR Legend was probably a financial flop not worthy of the Franchise and Square Enix have been taking their franchises very seriously in recent years.

Just look at the overall quality of titles like Sleeping Dogs, Deus Ex, Tomb Raider and Hitman.

I'd guess that it was Square Enix's change in direction that has dictated and facilitated this Reboot for Tomb Raider.

[Golgo]

I love a good 3rd person action adventure more than any other genre, me, and I'm starting to get tempted by all the righteous loving vibes on this thread (wasn't on my radar before as I was convinced Tomb Raider was a dead franchise). Anyhoo...what's difficulty in this like? Is it a stroll through or are they multiple difficulties, etc.?

[EvilBoris]

There are multiple difficulties and no achievements attached to them from what I can see, so if you don't want the combined trauma of Lara's constant impalement and falling off cliffs in cutscenes combined with being shot in the face, then you can always put it on easy,

[rmoxon]

I'm not saying it isn't a good game, by the sound of it I'd probably enjoy playing it.

But is it isn't TR any more. It is an action/adventure featuring a character they're calling Lara Croft. But she isn't the original TR Lara Croft and she's not even the Angelina Jolie-esque Lara Crystal Dynamics tried to get us to accept. The new Lara Croft and the game are both fundamentally different and IMHO it's only being called Tomb Raider for marketing reasons?

She is Lara croft, she's just a younger Lara croft. She's basically like the Daniel Craig James Bond. She is still the same character, but before she fully developed into what we know.

Maybe you should try playing it before you make silly comments.

[dataDave]

Anyhoo...what's difficulty in this like? Is it a stroll through or are they multiple difficulties, etc.?

I hear from people that are terrible at games that it is piss easy, even on hard.

can't help but feel like its going to be forgotten about in the near future.

Like everything else these days. How are people supposed to fondly remember 10-12 hour sedate experiences?

[rmoxon]

Its not the easiest game ever but its not that hard either, its just average. Its well paced as far as difficulty goes, in that it starts out easy and gets a bit harder as it goes on. I'd say its about as difficult as the first Uncharted game.

[Shozuki]

Can't say I'm particularly enjoying this either, saddens me to say that too. I really like the old TR games and even the recent CD created ones, this just seems to have too much of a focus on set pieces and yet more 3rd person shooting which is a real shame. Where is the well thought out puzzle based tombs? Or the nuanced and not automated gameplay...

Such a shame, I do hope this sells well though, we might start to get some of elements to the series re-implemented as Lara matures...

I'm 7 hours in for anyone that wondering!!