Was Tomb Raider overrated?

[RandV]

Tomb Raider wasn't overrated in '96/'97. It was rather refreshing. When most 3D games were mindless shooters, Tomb Raider required some thinking.

To the complaints about unlimited ammo and it being slow-paced and boring, those are all because the original wasn't meant to be an action game as much as a puzzle-solving game. It was very much in the vein of Prince of Persia 1 & 2, just in 3D. There was action, but the core gameplay was solving puzzles to move from area to area. If you didn't enjoy puzzles so much, then you weren't going to like it so much.

Yeah I was going to make the Prince of Persia comparison. Not sure if it was the first game to do this or not but what made the original Prince of Persia unique was the precise motion capture movement. Movement and jumping didn't happen the moment you pressed the button, but rather flowed with the natural animation of the character on screen. Tom Raider took this concept and applied it to 3D, which with the newer technology provided far more interesting environments.

I genuinely enjoyed it for what it was, but I do doubt it would have been so successful without Lara's big rack leading the way. And I can proudly say that in high school unlike my friends I wasn't swayed by the shameless sexploitation.

 

[Osprey]

Yeah I was going to make the Prince of Persia comparison. Not sure if it was the first game to do this or not but what made the original Prince of Persia unique was the precise motion capture movement. Movement and jumping didn't happen the moment you pressed the button, but rather flowed with the natural animation of the character on screen. Tom Raider took this concept and applied it to 3D, which with the newer technology provided far more interesting environments.

That's another thing that was quite revolutionary and one of the main reasons why it was so fun to play: the acrobatic moves. I had never felt such freedom in a 3D game to jump and do mid-air flips like that. It was exaggerated, obviously, but fun.

Also, that was the first time in a 3D game that I'd ever seen mantling, which was amazing. In DOOM, you couldn't even jump. In Quake (and most other games), you could jump, but, if the object was more than about 18 inches off of the ground, you couldn't get on top of it. In Tomb Raider, though, you could get up on top of objects that were even a little taller than you, by pulling yourself up by your arms, which created a huge sense of freedom.

I genuinely enjoyed it for what it was, but I do doubt it would have been so successful without Lara's big rack leading the way. And I can proudly say that in high school unlike my friends I wasn't swayed by the shameless sexploitation.

This is getting overplayed a bit, IMO. The camera is usually behind Lara, especially in the first few games. I think that that's one reason why her bust in TR1 is so low polygon and pointy: you don't see that side of her much. You actually had to purposefully back her into a wall so that the camera would show her front half. Once you did that and ogled her for a few moments, you went about playing the game.

I'm sure that controlling an athletic female character with a shapely silhouette and a pony tail added to the appeal of the game (for male and female gamers), but I'm also sure that a game with a male, Indiana Jones-like character would've been successful, too. The Prince of Persia and Uncharted series feature male characters, after all. Lara Croft no doubt pushed her series into the realm of phenomenon that a male character may not have, but I'm sure that it still would've been a hugely popular and influential game.

 

[SniperHF]

That's another thing that was quite revolutionary and one of the main reasons why it was so fun to play: the acrobatic moves. I had never felt such freedom in a 3D game to jump and do mid-air flips like that. It was exaggerated, obviously, but fun.

Also, that was the first time in a 3D game that I'd ever seen mantling, which was amazing. In DOOM, you couldn't even jump. In Quake (and most other games), you could jump.

This was one of the things that made the Duke 3D jetpack so amazing in terms of using height.

This is getting overplayed a bit, IMO. You rarely saw Lara's front half in the first few games if you were playing the game normally.

I don't think so. Just thinking of myself, I never had a PS1 or PC at the time but just through word of mouth I knew about the game because of this. It was a pretty hot topic at the time. Much more so than the gameplay which was notable and would have stood on its own.

 

[RandV]

I don't think so. Just thinking of myself, I never had a PS1 or PC at the time but just through word of mouth I knew about the game because of this. It was a pretty hot topic at the time. Much more so than the gameplay which was notable and would have stood on its own.

Yeah I was talking more about the pre-release hype, advertisements and previews in video game magazines and such, and not the actual gameplay. It's not something that you can say definitively but at least that's how it felt among my group of friends at the time.

And personally playing old games I'm never going to be put off by clunky old graphics. If it was good for me back then chances are it will still be good now. Speaking of Goldeneye, speaking of how bad the controlling was I actually got pretty damned good at it, making it the only multiplayer console FPS I was ever good at!

 

[Osprey]

Yeah I was talking more about the pre-release hype, advertisements and previews in video game magazines and such, and not the actual gameplay. It's not something that you can say definitively but at least that's how it felt among my group of friends at the time.

Oh, OK. I was referring to the gameplay and the interest garnered once people actually played it for the first time. The marketing wasn't much of a factor for me because I paid close attention to gaming news online and had already played the demo before most people had even heard of the game. My interest in the game came from the fact that it was a promising 3D game, but I'm sure that lots of other people learned about it first from the advertisements and word of mouth that emphasized the character's looks.

Also, though I responded to you, perhaps unfairly, I was also including the earlier comment from someone else, who said, "People only cared about the game because Laura Croft had a massive rack." That's simply not true, at least as a general statement. Perhaps many immature, early-teen boys cared for only that reason, but that doesn't characterize the whole audience that made the game so successful. If well-endowed, scantily-clad characters were enough to create huge gaming franchises, there'd be more of them and even porn games would be a lot more popular than they are. The fact is that, when it comes to games, gameplay is the most important thing. If the game isn't fun, it doesn't matter much what it does to grab attention.

EDIT: I loaded up Tomb Raider and played the first level. I'd forgotten how bad the controls are. The game doesn't use the mouse at all. It's completely keyboard-driven and the bindings aren't exactly the easiest to use. A flood of memories rushed back, reminding me of when I was playing the game for the first time and how much the controls bugged me then, too. I was reminded of how conflicted I was in 1996. On the one hand, the control scheme, camera angles and auto-aiming were maddening for me, but the large levels, puzzle solving and acrobatic movement were so captivating that I still had fun and put up with everything else.

 

[Nemesis Prime]

It was difficult back then too. Goldeneye always controlled very poorly, but it was as good as it got on consoles back in the day and so we put up with it.

Yep, but that goes back to Nintendo and them making one of the worst controllers ever. That thing is an abomination against humanity.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Yep, but that goes back to Nintendo and them making one of the worst controllers ever. That thing is an abomination against humanity.

It wasn't super difficult to control, there was some serious auto aim assistance in that game. Its just a hard adjustment going back to it.

But yeah the controller was terrible. Especially the hard-plastic ridged analog stick. I'm pretty sure there was an honest-to-goodness class action lawsuit and nintendo lost and had to pay out some money for all the blisters it caused.

It happened to me too. I got a terrible blister playing killer instinct though I believe it was mario party minigames that was the big cause of the lawsuit.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

People only cared about the game because Laura Croft had a massive rack. There, I said it. Whether you want to admit it or not the game's core audience was horny 12-16 year old males going through puberty and there was only one thing they cared about while playing Tomb Raider.

The game itself was not good and people only praise it today because of nostalgia goggles.

No, the MEDIA only cared about her massive rack. Fact is, it was a great game at the time, and the PS1's "killer app" before killer app's were a thing. A vast, beautiful 3D action adventure. The T-Rex level is still one of my greatest ever moments in gaming.

Saying a game from 1996 doesn't have this or that is irrelevant. At the time, it was a great game.

 

[guinness]

I don't think so. Just thinking of myself, I never had a PS1 or PC at the time but just through word of mouth I knew about the game because of this. It was a pretty hot topic at the time. Much more so than the gameplay which was notable and would have stood on its own.

Not really.

The artwork, yes, but in game, you would have to stop and mess around with the camera angles to see Lara.

Granted, 15 year old me did that, but I think this thread is a bit of revisionist history. The game was good as well, with nice puzzles and platforming tropes, otherwise the franchise would've withered and died if it was just boobs.

Some of the newer TR games are good too (underworld being fairly close to the originals), and the reboots are good as well, but much more rails and QTE (I have rise sitting on my shelf, but haven't played it yet).

 

[Gnova]

No, the MEDIA only cared about her massive rack. Fact is, it was a great game at the time, and the PS1's "killer app" before killer app's were a thing. A vast, beautiful 3D action adventure. The T-Rex level is still one of my greatest ever moments in gaming.

Saying a game from 1996 doesn't have this or that is irrelevant. At the time, it was a great game.

I agree. The tomb raider series was my favorite of tye PS1 era except maybe MGS and RE2.

If someone was to go back and play TR1/2/3 that hadn't already playe them then they would hate the experience. The controls took a long time to master but once you did running around in a open 3D environment was a lot of fun.

It was a game driven by a switch/puzzle system in the pre youtube era where someone would work hours to solve a puzzle instead of going to youtube 2 minutes after not being able to solve it.

As for the endless ammo pistols, it felt like homage to John Woo movies.

Yes there was a little fan service with regards to Lara Croft but that wasnt what kept people playing the game. Playing as a female character was also pretty unique.

 

[Nurmagomedov]

Tomb Raider was the bomb with my 3dfx Voodoo Diamond Monster 3D. Playstation didn't have one of those.

 

[SniperHF]

Not really.

The artwork, yes, but in game, you would have to stop and mess around with the camera angles to see Lara.

That's exactly the point. It was hype and not reality, but that played a lot into its perception through word of mouth and created a brand.

I don't dispute at all that it would have withered away were it a purely shallow game. I'm saying largely what gave it gravitas and a brand were initially things other than the gameplay.

 

[Common Sense]

What a bunch of insane posts in this thread. Lara Croft's "massive rack" looked distinctly like 2 pyramids so I'm pretty sure it probably wasn't the only reason why anyone ever played the game.

The level design was amazing, the atmosphere was amazing and the puzzles were great. The first 3 games were extremely challenging 3D platforming adventures that clearly weren't intended for casual audiences. If you want a casual "adventure" game where you slog through hundreds of enemies and get walked through puzzles like an 8 year old try Uncharted.

 

[aleshemsky83]

^^^ as i said, the games were pretty difficult, never even got through one of those demos that came with a magazine.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Of course by today's standards the game is horrible, but overrated? No. It was a very successful franchise that helped pave the way for future games like it. You can't put 2016 standards on a game made 20 years ago, it's not logical.

 

[Osprey]

Also, if you happen to be re-playing the original on PC and in Windows, as I am, I highly recommend that you do the following:

1. Install nGlide, a Glide wrapper.
2. Run its config program from the Start Menu or by directly running C:\Windows\SYSWOW64\nglide_config.exe (or System32, if 32-bit Windows).
3. In the config program, set...
Screen resolution=By desktop
Aspect ratio=Preserve original
Gamma correction=0.5
...and click Apply.
4. Delete or rename the glide2x.dll that's in your Tomb Raider folder so that the game uses the version that nGlide installed, instead.

What that allows you to do is play the game in your desktop resolution (no more 640x480!) and corrects the overly-bright gamma. Both make the game more visually appealing and a little easier to enjoy.

 

[Osprey]

I stated earlier that I'd started playing the original Tomb Raider again, thanks to this thread, and I finished it just last night. I said before that it wasn't an overrated game and can say now, having completed it again, that it's even better than I remembered. Once you adjust to the primitive graphics and awkward controls, it's still a great deal of fun to play, even in 2016. The story and cutscenes are awful (as though they were an afterthought), but the gameplay is simply top notch.

As I played, I was reminded of just how revolutionary the graphics and gameplay were for 1996. Remember that, before 1996, 3D games weren't "true 3D" (you couldn't have rooms above other rooms, for example) and levels weren't very big. Tomb Raider had a true 3D engine and the levels were just massive at the time. Some of the rooms that you find yourself in are 10+ stories tall and you often find yourself making your way to the top of them. It really was/is something special to climb and jump your way to the top of a really tall room and then look down at where you were earlier. That was something that even Quake (another true 3D game from 1996) didn't really have.

I was surprised by how long of a game it is. It took me over two weeks, playing an hour every day, to finish it. It had more levels than I expected and it took me longer to finish each one than I expected. I foolishly thought that the game would be relatively easy nowadays. I probably should've realized by now that one shouldn't underestimate the challenge of older games, which are usually more devilish, require more precision and hold your hand much less than modern games. Of course, the challenge added to my enjoyment.

Anyways, having now fully played it through again, I can say again that this was a revolutionary game that was (and still is) a lot of fun, not a game that was overrated because the character had a big chest. Perhaps, after the first two or three games, when the innovation wore off and the sex appeal got to be the only distinguishing feature from other 3D action-adventure games (many of which wouldn't have happened without the first Tomb Raider's success), it got to be overrated, but those first few games weren't definitely not overrated. It says something that, in 2016 (20 years after it was released), after I intended to play only a level or two, I ended up playing through the whole game and am thinking about playing Tomb Raider II next.

 

[RandV]

Speaking of difficulty & challenge, don't forget that the PC version lets you save anywhere. On the Playstation there were specific points you could save at, and they were pretty spread out.

 

[Osprey]

Speaking of difficulty & challenge, don't forget that the PC version lets you save anywhere. On the Playstation there were specific points you could save at, and they were pretty spread out.

I definitely exploited the save-anywhere feature. I had over 250 saves my first time through (yes, I still, somehow, have my savegame from 20 years ago) and had over 300 when I re-played it just now (since my tolerance for re-playing areas, especially when I die because of wonky camera angles, is lower nowadays). I can't imagine playing it on PlayStation with save points. Apparently, there was enough complaint of that feature, though, that save-anywhere was included for the PlayStation version of Tomb Raider II.

 

[Clock]

- Infinite ammo for your default pistols (Not even NES games did that)
- Even the weapons that did have limited ammo, there were no clips. It's as if you had 600 rounds of ammo jammed into one gun.
- Laura's lack of personality and her in-it-for-herself mentality
- Finding random artifacts and items in the most random of places (Medi packs in the bottom of the ocean, for example.)
- Poor pix elated graphics even by PS1 standards (Although I don't believe that graphics=quality game)

Honestly, none of this really sticks out as being against the grain for games that were out at the time to me.

 

[Butchered]

The two new TR games were absolutely fantastic. I really enjoyed Rise of the Tomb Raider. Seemed like a step up from the first reboot in just about every way.

Certainly worth a play through.