Can It Top The Original?

[mrcube]

All Right, this has probably been done before, but I really want to know, who thinks that TR 1 is still the best and from what I've seen of Legend it still can't beat it. I mean after reading the review in PS2 magazine, and then saying its a bit short and all the big tombs are gone and that people are coming up all over the place, I'm not thinking its going to be as good.

Tomb Raider has become way to much about killing people, I mean take the PS2 demo of Legend, you kill what, about 10 people in it and thats just level, thats already nearly double what you killed in the ENTIRE first game (thats right you only killed 6 people in it) And where are all the animals that Lara kills, she always killed the animals that were in the tombs, not the humans, because there hardly ever were any. Legend also seems WAY to easy, you literally can't fall off the edge of something accidently, she turns round and grabs it, that isn't realistic. I miss the hand grab as well and what happened to Lara's original mansion, from what we've seen of the new mansion so far, it looks completly different. I wish they could create another Tomb Raider game that really was like the original was. And where you only kill a few people.

The review also mentions that Lara lacks guns, I hate this new system, I mean whats happened to the inventroy? that it was always part of Tomb Raider, and whats happened to Lara's infinite bag, I always enjoyed that, and now being able to carry a limited about of stuff, may ne more realistic, but it isn't as fun. It aslo seems from the demo and the review that Lara is lacking any really good guns, she has her pistols of cause, but the only other good guns are the machine guns.

Well, I suppose that I can't judge the game yet as it isn't out yet, but from what I seeing, I'm liking the game and loving the graphics, but it doesn't feel like a true Tomb Radier game, personally i think the only two true TR games are the first one and The Last Revelation.

But, I guess will have to wait and see.

[WraithStar]

I'm going to wait until I play Legend before I answer this question By the way, I don't remember killing 6 people in TR1. Larson, Pierre, that guy who took my guns, and Natla are the only ones I remember. Who are the other 2?

[mrcube]

I'm not 100% sure, but it was it down the side of one of the pages in the UK PS2 magazine review, it says that '260 creatures were killed in the first Tomb Raider game, 194 of these were animals on the edangered species list & 6 were people'

[Faye]

I miss the hand grab as well and what happened to Lara's original mansion, from what we've seen of the new mansion so far, it looks completly different.

Please note: When I say Croft Manor I am referring to Lara's parents house, the house where Lara was brought up, and when I say Croft Mansion I am referring to a house originally owned by a member of the Croft family which was passed down to Lara (in the Core Design storyline only).

I think it sort of makes sense that doesn't she doesn't live in the Core Design version of the house in this game. We all have to remember that this is a new, seperate storyline, not a continuation of the old storyline. Now, remember that she lived in Croft Mansion because she inherited it from a family member (from her father's side of the family, hence the name still being Croft) who had been sympathetic to her situation (she got kicked out of her parents house, Croft Manor, when they fell out).

Her parents are dead in this different storyline, so there would be no reason for to be living in a house that didn't belong to her parents; she would never have been kicked out; she would still be living in the house that she had been brought up in. The fact that they copied her house in the films makes even more sense; her parents were dead in the films too, so she was still living in Croft Manor, she had never moved to Croft Mansion. People get the two houses mixed up and think the Core Design house and the film house are the same, but, logically they aren't. Hmm, in the films, she lives in Buckinghamshire, as opposed to Surrey in the Core Design games (which could make sense I suppose, because, like I said, she wouldn't be living in the same place if she had been kicked out (like in the Core Design games) than if she had never been kicked out and her parents had died (like in the films and the Crystal Dynamics games)) so I wonder if that means that her parents live(d) in Buckinghamshire and therefore this will be her home in Legend?

It all makes sense anyway when you think about it. If she never got disowned in the Crystal Dynamics storyline then she wouldn't have ended up in Croft Mansion in the first place; she'd still be at Croft Manor, her parent's home. It's actually more faithful and consistant to have copied the film house. If not, then there'd be three houses: Croft Mansion, film version of Croft Manor and game version of Croft Manor! But they've kept it together and consistant this time, so that's a good thing.

Croft Manor would have existed in the Core Design games as well, it would have been where her parents were living, we just never got to see it.

By the way, I don't remember killing 6 people in TR1. Larson, Pierre, that guy who took my guns, and Natla are the only ones I remember. Who are the other 2?

In Tomb Raider, the humans you killed were:

Mr. Larson
Pierre Dupont
Jacqueline Natla

And Natla's three henchmen:

The cowboy with the twin Magnums
The skateboarder with the twin Uzis
The bald man with the shotgun

I suppose you could count mummies as human enemies too! Just undead ones.

[munchkin]

Different games, from different perspectvies. Tomb Raider 1 will always be special, always. Even today its so good to play it again.

having recently played it i can say it is actually not as long as one remebers, it finishes alittle quickly, i was left feeling a need to play through again. Whih according to the OPS2 mag is exactly what occurs with Legend it feels small, mainly because you finish needing to still be playing it.

As for the rest, we really havn;t seen enough to judge one way ro the other, we don;t know if the first level is typical, or if on some levels, there are no men, after you, etc. we simply won;t know until our little paws have the game in their grasp.

so like faye i'm not voting till i've played the game only fair

beccaxx

[Joshorty]

Originally Posted by mrcube

Well, I suppose that I can't judge the game yet as it isn't out yet, but from what I seeing, I'm liking the game and loving the graphics, but it doesn't feel like a true Tomb Radier game, personally i think the only two true TR games are the first one and The Last Revelation.

But, I guess will have to wait and see.

I'm so glad someone AT LEAST mentions that when they feel whatever game it is that they're worrying about or don't like somethin' 'cause of one point of view and still points out that their final judgement can't be decided yet. (unlike a MSN convo I just recently had...which was full of stupid criticism... )

Well, I respect your point of view there...I understand...currently right now, I THINK Tomb Raider I will still stand on its ground until this one comes out...which I'm highly lookin' forward to....if you guys remembered the FIRST LEGEND site, they played the ORIGINAL TOMB RAIDER THEME that we all know and all loved....O man my soul just tells me that that game will just return with a triumphant return...'cause Tomb Raider I's atmosphere is none that you can compare with other games...and it's also the first TR/PS-ONE game I've EVER played...I'm glad to have bought PS-ONE instead of N64 that time ...it was all because of the main attraction of Pokemon durin' the '98-99...I like SONY

[WraithStar]

I'm expecting Legend to be fantastic. I'm just a little nervous about a few things which the demo will probably answer.

[dhama]

It'll certainly look prettier than the previous incarnations, but... and this is a big but, it can never hold the original excitement of playing Tomb Raider for the first time. So I envy newcomers to Tomb Raider.