GYG Review: "Tomb Raider: Anniversary"

[Grant]

Here's this week's GYG review on "Tomb Raider: Anniversary", available on the Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii, Sony PS2, PSP, and Windows PC. This review is based on the X360 model of the game.

By way of update, it sounds as if AZRaider is going to be devoting a section of GYG to my reviews in audio format... so if you've always wanted to hear what a 32 year-old game review "technician" sounds like, you might be in luck very soon.

Happy Chrismunkwanzaanukah, everybody. See you in the oh-eight.

Mahalo.

TOMB RAIDER: ANNIVERSARY
Publisher: Eidos Interactive
Platform: Xbox 360
Adjusted Score: 2/5


Eleven years is a long, long time in the hallowed halls of the American video gaming experience. Industry skill in crafting games seems to double and triple exponentially every few years, to the point where even games from that bygone yesteryear of 1996 can even seem quaint. If you doubt this, take a moment to think back on the games of your youth -- it's a certainty you reflect on the good ones as timeless classics, the likes of which could never be replicated in today's day-and-age. (Even though they probably could. There's nothing timeless about Tekken, and I'll go to the mat with anybody that says otherwise.)

It's difficult to put into words how much the original Tomb Raider helped shape modern-day gaming as an artform. 2D platform games were still very much alive, and the 3D "total immersion" types of adventures were still finding their feet in all their blocky, polygonal glory. But in 1996, new developer Core Interactive and fledgling publisher Eidos Interactive introduced us to the obvious successor to Indiana Jones -- a spunky British adventurer by the name of Lara Croft -- and the whole of gamingdom instantly fell over themselves in an attempt to replicate the magic from her original adventure.

Time has proven successful for the Croft name, if not her legacy -- two extremely forgettable feature films and many, many substandard game sequels later, the franchise continues to move forward. That is, until Tomb Raider Anniversary... which inexplicably turns the dial on the Wayback Machine to 1996, and "reimagines" her first adventure with next-generation graphics.

Hooray! It's 1996 again! Somebody grab my Ace of Base and MC Hammer CDs out of the closet, and let's turn this mutha OUT.

TR:A proved exceedingly difficult to review, because ostensibly what's being asked is to review a game with no discernible differences from the original in any way other than an updated look. You'd think that would actually be easier, but it's not -- since the once-innovative gameplay must now be measured against the scores of successors that came after. I wonder if this is how film critics must have looked at Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of "Psycho".

To that end, let's start with the overall look of Tomb Raider Anniversary. It's fair to say this is the best the game has ever looked, but that's not really a glowing endorsement. Caverns and mountains have a much more realistic patina about them, and the backgrounds are lush and colorful. However, these compliments must be tempered by the criticism of the character modeling, which is a strange mishmash of realism-vs-cartoon that somehow fails to capture the best of each. Of all the models, however, the look of Lara Croft is undoubtedly the finest, giving her a solid mix of characteristics between Angelina Jolie and the many swimsuit model-come-"actress" types that have donned the teal halter-top over the years. Skin tones are realistically portrayed and lighting is also done well, but the plasticine-looking faces leave a lot to be desired.

Gameplay... well, not much has changed, and it shows. Lara is still being repeatedly thrust into a series of frustrating jump puzzles that result in either A) amazing success, or B) lethal failure. Other than a couple minor changes intended to enhance the gunplay scenes (lock-on controls, bullet-time dodging) the game remains the "classic" it was back in 1996. And by "classic", I mean "gameplay that will infuriate you", "back-tracking around lush caverns looking for some piece of crap that will open a door someplace", and "falling to your death hundreds of times trying to make a seemingly easy wall-jump that the in-game engine doesn't recognize."

As to the fun factor... well, perhaps I'm not the best judge. The truth is, when the game is giving you new things to look at, it's a fairly attractive game with lots going for it. But when the adventures turn to either the "jump and fall to your death 1000 times" guesswork or the "run around trying to find some random geegaw to open a door, all so I can find another random geegaw"-style of play, that pretty much spells disaster for me. Your mileage may vary somewhat, but don't say I didn't warn you.

I don't want to give you the impression that TR:A is a bad game. Far from it. It delivers on everything it intends to; it just doesn't aspire for more. The problem I see is this:

TR:A is going to be best "enjoyed" by gamers that played the original, liked it, and want to re-experience it on a new platform. But I can't help but feel that the marketing is flawed, in that it also supposes Classic Gamer #1 hasn't yet noticed games like Prince of Persia and Assassin's Creed, both of which take that genre and add entirely fresh new spins on the gameplay. TR:A offers none of the perks of those titles and all of the headaches -- so I'd guess Eidos expected people to be NOSTALGIC for this? I can't say.

TR:A is worth a rental for people that look back fondly on the classic platform puzzler, but I can't say I could recommend it for anyone else, particularly those gamers young enough to not have experienced Lara's original adventures. For those that have, you owe this title a passing glance -- for those that haven't, you owe it nothing but a pass.

Now step away from the Ace of Base, and nobody gets hurt. Seriously.

[AZRaiderH8r]

Nice work man!