Tomb Raider: PSone original out now on iOS formats

Tuesday, 17th December 2013 11:16 GMT By Dave Cook

Tomb Raider publisher Square Enix has released Lara’s original PSone adventure on iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch. It’s out now.

It follows the January 28 release date for Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition on PS4 and Xbox One.

Square announced the game’s release over on Twitter. You can check out the Tomb Raider App Store page through the link.

It’ll run you only £0.69 / $0.99 and comes with all of the original Tomb Raider levels and gameplay intact. While optimised for iPhone 5, the game will run on iPad and iPod Touch packing iOS 7.0 or higher.

Any takers?



  1. monkeygourmet

    Wow… This played like ass on the PS1, this is going to be truely awful on touchscreen…

    It always made me laugh because Mario 64 came out at roughly the same time. A fat plumber managed to handle better than Lara Croft… That should never happen!

    #1 1 year ago
  2. johnapocalypse

    So you’re going to make it MORE unplayable?

    #2 1 year ago
  3. Dave Cook

    It played like ‘ass’ because we didn’t have dual analogue sticks back then. Considering the limitations of tech at he time it handled admirably for such a complex experience.

    #3 1 year ago
  4. mistermogul

    @Dave – Dualshock 1 had dual analogue sticks didn’t it?

    Anyway I recently completed the lastest Tomb Raider on PS3 and friggin loved it. Definitely won’t be rehashing over the older games though as I feel they have not aged well in the gameplay department – especially on iOS… Fook that!

    #4 1 year ago
  5. Ireland Michael

    It played like ass because it was ass. The problem with Tomb Raider was its completely obsessive focus on pixel perfect jumping and tank like movement. It was terrible design eve back then.

    I could maybe excuse the first game for it, but there was no absolutely excuse for the three sequels that followed it, and especially not the PS2 game before the reboot.

    Tomb Raider mastered iterative laziness long before Call of Duty was even a thing.

    @4 Not initially. Tomb Raider came out in 1996. Dualshock controllers didn’t come out until 1997, mainly as a response to the analogue in the Nintendo 64 controller.

    #5 1 year ago
  6. salarta

    The abundance of games with the same sort of controls such as Resident Evil and Silent Hill kinda sorta demolishes claims that the controls were bad at the time. How in the hell would so many games with bad controls become huge popular franchises if the controls weren’t good for their time? Through the story and characters that everyone also claims were the worstest thing ever?

    This is typical “pretend the game was made with today’s expectations and judge it harshly for being made in the 90s” bullshit.

    #6 1 year ago
  7. monkeygourmet


    No, it’s a poor game that sold through tits and ass.

    Resident evil worked because the poor control actually added to the survival horror tension. It’s why the games have stumbled so much now controls been handed back to the player.

    #7 1 year ago
  8. Ireland Michael

    @6 They were bad in those games as well.

    The genre of choice for Silent Hill and Resident Evil allowed it somewhat, as they were horror games and it added to the tension. Resident Evil was more funny than scary though, so that killed it for me. I spent more time laughing during those games than I did being scared. Silent Hill at least succeeded in being what it tried to be.

    In its defence, the shooting controls in Tomb Raider was probably the one part of the game that actually handled well. That’s about it.

    Just because there are a dozen turds on the road doesn’t excuse the turd being there in the first place.

    “This is typical “pretend the game was made with today’s expectations and judge it harshly for being made in the 90s” bullshit.”

    No it isn’t. I thought it was shit even back in 1996.

    #8 1 year ago
  9. bradk825

    Completely forgot the original controller didn’t have the sticks. Memory is the first thing that goes they say.

    #9 1 year ago
  10. fihar

    Resident Evil had shitty controls as well, but that game doesn’t force you to fight rabid animals and jumping around to the next ledge or whatever.

    Do you die from falling in Resident Evil? No? Then why the fuck would you compare the two?

    I admired it for combining gunplay, classic platforming elements and puzzle but it was still a frustrating experience for 7 year-old me.

    #10 1 year ago
  11. Blackened Halo

    This is TR, not that shitty one from 2013

    #11 1 year ago
  12. Panthro


    “resident evil doesn’t force you to fight rabid animals”

    We must have played different games.

    #12 1 year ago
  13. salarta

    Ah, mistaking “the gameplay plays terribly by today’s standards” with “the gameplay was terrible in the first place.” Gotta love it. Apparently people didn’t like gameplay in their games in the 90s, the majority of people just wanted really really expensive B-movies made of ambiguous computer graphics.

    #13 1 year ago
  14. Panthro


    Lol +1

    Gotta love those guys who think the story and gameplay of Killzone and Ryse are ‘amazing’…

    They are as constricting as Heavy Rain was, only Heavy Rain done what it was meant to properly.

    #14 1 year ago
  15. Ireland Michael

    @13 And once again you use an incredibly short sighted lens of an argument to justify your own personal bias.

    I’m pretty sure I have a better idea of what I thought about the games back then than you do.

    I enjoyed plenty of games in the 90s. The fact that the ones that I and others didn’t enjoy those games doesn’t mean they we somehow disliked every single game made back them. That’s a utterly ridiculous conclusion to come to.

    I remember very vividly reading previews for the games in CVG and GamesMaster. I remember picking them up on day one. I remember 100% Super Mario 64 because it was so brilliantly made. I remember playing through Silent I remember giving up on Resident Evil because the puzzles were boring and tedious and the gameplay was stiff and unenjoyable. l also remember giving up on Tomb Raider after the 50th pixel-perfect-obsessed platform and death drop obsessed area. I rented out the later ones, and every single time I was just as disappointed.

    I thought it was shit back then because, back then, I thought it was shit. Why is it so impossibly difficult for you to believe that might be the case for some of us?

    Why I am even asking? I already know the answer. It’s because pigeonholing everyone who doesn’t agree with your obsessive viewpoints as ignorant, stupid and uneducated is the only way you can deal with the world.

    #15 1 year ago
  16. bradk825

    @11 I suppose you’re upset that William Shatner isn’t in Star Trek anymore and the Marvel movies don’t match the comic books word for word.

    It’s a reboot. They rebooted it. And by the way, it was brilliant.

    #16 1 year ago
  17. salarta

    @14: I haven’t played Killzone yet, I mostly got it since I was getting a PS4, had an offer to get a free extra game and it has at least one female character.

    I think there are definitely games highly touted as being amazing and perfect today that will be abhorred as having terrible gameplay or characterization in 20 years. Lately it seems like people mistake “this is old and has aged poorly” for “this was always bad,” as if times don’t change and pop culture isn’t fickle as all hell by changing things just to suit current trends. It’s why remakes of films and games always bastardize the source material, they’re trying to appeal to people that can’t be bothered to think about when those things came out and appreciate them based on the time period of their origin.

    Some people not liking the gameplay when the game came out does not trump the fact that tons of people that aren’t them did like the game, and that those people liking the game did not mean they did so thinking the gameplay sucked at the time. The franchises wouldn’t exist otherwise.

    @16: Yeah, but there’s a line where it passes from “here’s the stuff you liked only modernized” into “here’s a completely new idea using the names and some of the concepts of things you liked.”

    #17 1 year ago
  18. fihar

    Hey, let’s focus on this guy’s mistake instead of actually trying to comprehend his and other people’s arguments as a whole and coming up with an opposing one so that I could look smart!

    So typical.

    How nice of you to ignore monkey’s Mario 64 argument.
    The controls were shit, why the hell did you think there was a training ground?
    Even if the game as a whole was good, the failure to admit that it was frustrating to play even in 1997 is pure denial on your part.

    Do you seriously think that people loved the original Resident Evil because it had amazing controls?
    No, because the first enemy I encountered as Jill was a zombie that was having a pleasant dinner.

    Resident Evil’s controls were something you tolerated, not admired.

    #18 1 year ago
  19. salarta

    @18: Training is common even for games today. I didn’t say the controls weren’t shit, I said the controls weren’t shit by standards of the time. People are eager to say the game always sucked when their success shows that’s patently not true. They suck by today’s standards because control improved. People that were exploring new ways to make video games have figured out how to make them better since then.

    I think people loved the original Resident Evil because it was fun even with the controls to walk around that kind of world and explore and fight in that fashion. Control has improved since then, so those controls were abandoned, as was necessary. The controls held up next to the other games on the market better than their competitors.

    #19 1 year ago
  20. deathm00n

    I agree that controls were shit, I’ve played Chronicles and WTF was that? I couldn’t jump straight, it’s right on top of my list of worst control in a game. I promised myself I would not play another tomb raider until the controls were changed and I didn’t. Just you see shit it really was even back then.

    #20 1 year ago
  21. Ireland Michael

    @18 fihar, he ignores every argument that proves him wrong. You know this as well as I.

    It’s why he ignores the fact that people actually thought it was shit even back then, and replaces it with “Everyone is too stupid to comprehend their own opinions.”

    @19 “People are eager to say the game always sucked when their success shows that’s patently not true.”

    Success has never, ever been a valid metric for quality. You’re usually the one pointing that fact out. (typically followed by five paragraphs of why your intellect is superior for being aware of the fact, and how everyone else’s is inferior.)

    Oh wait, it doesn’t fit into your argument, so now the logic changes.

    #21 1 year ago
  22. Panthro


    There were plenty of games with bad controls back then and there are plenty of games with bad controls now.

    If you cant adapt to controls you aren’t used to then just don’t get games which stray away from what you know.

    Resident Evil and Tomb Raider became some of the most loved games of that generation whether you like them or not, it goes to show bad controls or not people still loved those games.

    I loved Resident Evil 1 and 2, 3 was alright.
    Tomb Raider though? I played it and it was alright, I know plenty of people who loved it.

    There you go, I had my input on your argument… you happy?

    Now I can get back to making ‘typical’ remarks on comments to make myself look ‘smart’. Nah, your comment didn’t make sense so I called you out on it, this is the internet… get used to it.

    #22 1 year ago
  23. monkeygourmet

    The controls have been awful right up until the reboot, now they are god tier.

    The new Tomb Raider went from being a game I hated the look of, to one of my favourite games from this year. A huge part of that was due to the amazing controls; it was the closest we’ve been to Mario with guns. It made Uncharted feel very clunky in comparison.

    Fantastic re-boot to a poor series.

    #23 1 year ago
  24. Ireland Michael

    @23 Ramble ramble torture porn ramble ramble weak woman ramble ramble insult to character ramble ramble hypocritical bullshit by a guy who writes porn about rape and age play

    Tomb Raider is pretty much a meteoric rise from the ashes for a terrible, irrelevant series and a barren and void cliche of a character. It’s pretty much going to be held as a benchmark of quality high for gaming in general for years to come, and the example every developer goes to when they want to bring their franchises kicking and screaming into the 21st century,

    #24 1 year ago
  25. manamana

    @24 heheheh

    #25 1 year ago
  26. manamana

    On topic: it gets 1star reviews because of the controls….

    #26 1 year ago
  27. salarta

    Point is, if the controls were really THAT bad, most people never would’ve suffered through the games. Graphics have never been anywhere near enough of an incentive to play through a bad game for the average person. They were a big attention grabber and could elevate an average game to being called an astounding one or a bad game to a tolerable one to some people, yes, but it didn’t cause anyone to play and heavily tout a game that was bad enough to be borderline unplayable.

    N64 was still using cartridges, and for each game like Mario 64 there’s also games like the N64 Castlevanias. Gameplay and controls in a 3D environment were the territory of exploration, some groups were able to work it better than others.

    #27 1 year ago
  28. monkeygourmet


    People really do suffer through bad controls because of brand loyalty / not knowing other options are available etc.. There are many reasons and it does happen all the time.

    It’s the main reason I bang on about Nintendo nailing controls and the void between games like Tomb Raider and Mario 64 have always been apparent to anyone who could actually sit down and analysis style and quality over substance.

    It was also a classic example of people seeing Tomb Raider as the ‘mature’ game based on content, when it actually played like ass.

    Marketing FTW.

    #28 1 year ago
  29. Ireland Michael

    @27 “Point is, if the controls were really THAT bad, most people never would’ve suffered through the games.”

    Never stopped (old) FIFA from selling. Or countless PS1 mascot platformers. Or Call of Duty, Resident Evil, and God of War. I could go on.

    People go with the brands they know. Quality is utterly meaningless to the casual consumers, because they have nothing to compare it to. That’s not a criticism, just a fact.

    Tekken was constantly touted as the best fighting game because it was the only one that wasn’t Street Fighter that people knew about, even though Virtua Fighter was the technically superior game in every sense.

    #29 1 year ago
  30. salarta

    @28: That’s brand loyalty, we’re talking about games that had no brand loyalty behind them. Maybe Resident Evil since it was Capcom, but that’s a bit of a stretch in my opinion since it was a brand new IP and unlike their other well-known games, and doesn’t cover Tomb Raider. Not knowing other options comes to two issues. One is that I find it unlikely that they wouldn’t know they had other options out there (there were magazines, peers, the local rental store, not to mention TV ads), but more importantly, if the gameplay really was THAT bad for even for its time, then not having other options wouldn’t have changed the fact that the controls sucked enough to make the games borderline unplayable.

    I don’t think anyone could argue Mario 64 was somehow worse than Tomb Raider or Resident Evil in terms of controls. Anyone that’s played them should know that. But that doesn’t mean the controls were bad for their time even if there were other games with better controls. As I’ve said multiple times now, how to make gameplay for a 3D environment was new stuff. It was at least good enough to be playable and enjoyable to a majority of people. If that was not the case, these franchises would have died out due to bad controls well before they could’ve gotten massive gameplay overhauls.

    I also don’t think the “it’s mature so it’s cool” thing played as much of a factor as people thought it did. That’s not to say it played no factor at all, I distinctly remember classmates talking about Lara’s boobs, but by and large gameplay of the games we played got way more discussion. “I needed to mix this with this” in Resident Evil, for example.

    #30 1 year ago
  31. fihar

    Right, so your arguments on me saying that Tomb Raider and Resident Evil’s controls were bad was that they WERE bad?
    Dude, you’re clearly mistaking me saying the controls are bad as me saying that the games are bad.

    Look, I’ve been saying from the very beginning that just because the games were indeed good, you can’t ignore the fact that the controls were shit.
    Take the good with the bad, don’t swept the bad part under the rug just because you liked the game.

    It was bad, but I don’t know whether it was that bad.
    Tomb Raider was lucky in that there weren’t a lot of games having a dual-pistol wielding female protagonist with a mix of puzzle, platforming and gunplay so obviously I was willing to overlook some of its flaws back then, but they were still there, laughing at me every single time I fell off a cliff.

    I finished it so it was not unplayable but again, it tends to be quite frustrating at times.

    #31 1 year ago
  32. Panthro


    How does that work?
    Most of them were new IP’s…
    Buying a new IP which has bad controls is hardly any type of loyalty.


    I agree with Tekken being a better fighting game, it had likable characters, didn’t have such a steep learning curve like Street Fighter did and it was just generally a cool game to play with friends, not that the other options weren’t I just liked Tekken more.
    The way you try to look down on people who don’t like the same games you as is funny, its like your a hipster who doesn’t like all the ‘mainstream’ titles.

    Fine, you liked Virtua Fighter more… OK? It was a good game I played it.
    But saying everything the ‘casual consumer’ buys lacks quality is utterly ridiculous.

    #32 1 year ago
  33. dizzygear

    Im gonna be that guy and say the originals controls were fine for what we had. Doing the jumps were as simple as using the walk button to walk to the edge of a ledge so you cant fall off, tap back and than do a running jump and hold the grapple button when you jump.

    They even tell you this in the bloody tutorial.

    It was one of the first fully 3D games on a console and looked impressive as hell back than. I have fond memories of it. Also T-rex…

    #33 1 year ago
  34. Panthro


    Yep I thought they were fine to, I played the game with ease and I was a kid! …but people like to bitch.

    #34 1 year ago
  35. salarta

    @31: Yeah, the controls were definitely frustrating. The idea isn’t that they were the most awesome controls imaginable or anything, only that they were good in terms of the time they came out and it’s unfair to claim they were always bad. Doesn’t change how obnoxious it was to play with clunky controls, only pushes for perspective and some measure of appreciation of the work that was put into working out controls at a time when it was new territory. Someone or several someones (usually the latter) put a lot of work into making those games as good as they were in comparison to other games at the time. :)

    #35 1 year ago
  36. monkeygourmet


    Sorry, I meant brand loyalty to a console mainly. The amount of times I was told the Playstation was superior to anything else because of games like Toshinden for example.

    Flashy graphics (for the time), to mask poor control and gameplay. Couple that with a genius marketing strategy and suddenly games like Toshinden, Tomb Raider etc… Were the best thing since sliced bread. History tells us however, that they were in fact shit.

    I’m not saying PS didn’t have great games btw, it’s just Tombraider wasn’t one of them from a gameplay perspective.

    #36 1 year ago
  37. fihar

    That’s a bit harsh ain’t it?
    Fatal Frame was released in 2001 and had the same basic control as Resident Evil and I still think it’s the best supranatural horror game I’ve ever played.
    Supranatural as in actual incorporeal ghosts that could move through walls and yourself instead of gruesome zombie shits.

    There are other factors that could go into my decision in overlooking bad controls other than the reason you mentioned.

    #37 1 year ago
  38. dizzygear

    @36 “…Were the best thing since sliced bread. History tells us however, that they were in fact shit.”


    #38 1 year ago
  39. salarta

    @36: I’ll admit, graphics did get a lot of touting, though it was more for the cinematics. As far as I remember, the N64 and PS1 gameplay graphics were roughly equivalent, it was only when cinematics like the ones in FF7 came into play that the difference became notable, since N64 had no cinematics. It was coming off the constant bit wars of one-upsmanship pushed by marketing, so yeah, it did play a factor.

    But I don’t think it went so far that people would pretend a game with unplayable controls or gameplay was a masterpiece.

    None of the following is directed at you, monkeygourmet, just a revision and addendum of my prior posts. I also have to take back a little bit of what I said about maturity earlier. It depends on the definition of maturity. If we’re talking about “this game has boobs” or “this game has lots of blood and gore,” I don’t think those goals in themselves were as big of a deal as people made them out to be. But I do think the fact that you COULD have those elements in a game was a big deal to people, because it was a lifting of the restrictions spearheaded by Nintendo. It was a chance to explore mature themes and issues. Unfortunately, that did tend to get translated into “kids want blood and boobs.”

    Personally, one of my favorite games of the PS1 era was Parasite Eve, I ended up playing it almost nonstop until I beat it, and it was because it had mature intellectual elements combined with enjoyable (to me at least) gameplay. It was definitely not a case of “oh em gee, I can see Eve’s naked nipple-less breasts in this one cutscene.”

    #39 1 year ago
  40. monkeygourmet


    Of course, there are many reasons.

    You could argue Dark / Demons Souls has ‘bad’ controls (my friend said this), yet I think they are incredible titles. The thing is the game is suited to this, same with Resi & Fatal Frame, it just works.

    The problem I had with Tombraider is that the pad / console clearly wasn’t up to the ambition of the project, it just wasn’t a very good game, even at the time.

    If it was, it would still hold up today. It doesn’t, not in anyway: art style, controls, nothing…

    A good game stays a good game forever. It’s not just confined to a certain time. Donkey Kong for example, looks like shit (although you could say its charming), but just plays like a genius dream. Perfect.

    The only reason Tombraider goes down in history is because of Lara Crofts jugs, oh, and the T Rex as @Dizzygear mentioned.

    #40 1 year ago
  41. Ireland Michael

    @32 Yes, Tekken did have more interesting characters, greater accessibility, and better multiplayer modes.

    But Virtua Fighter was, on a purely mechanical level, far more technically complex, in-depth and balanced, and that makes it a better *game* in the basic sense of the word. Tekken was the better *experience* though. It depends on what you want out of a game obviously, but for me gameplay mechanics will always win out over anything else.

    “The way you try to look down on people who don’t like the same games you as is funny, its like your a hipster who doesn’t like all the ‘mainstream’ titles.”

    No, you’re just being needlessly defensive. You’re taking offence to my opinion of the product as an attack against you personally. I think its interesting that you think I’m “looking down” at you when I don’t think anything of the sort.

    I own Tekken Tag Tournament 2 *and* Virtua Fighter 5: Final Showdown on both the PS3 and Xbox 360. I enjoy tonnes of mainstream titles, including the rebooted Tomb Raider, Borderlands 2, Battlefield 4, GTAV, and countless others. So hipster.

    At what point did I say that there was anything wrong with someone liking either game? I was simply pointing out to salarta that popularity doesn’t go hand in hand with technical excellence, and VF / Tekken was just an on hand example.

    #41 1 year ago
  42. monkeygourmet


    I know what you mean, but when the shackles of age appropriate content were removed by Sony, all people wanted to do was draw a pair of tits on the text book and talk about drug culture.

    It was s sad attempt at grabbing a teenage market and making them feel ‘okay’ about playing videogames and whacking off to Loaded magazine.

    I’ve never been ashamed about playing games, so this advertising campaign baffled me, even more so when I got to try the games.

    I preferred F Zero to Wipeout, Mario to Tomb Raider, 1080 to Cool Boarders, Street Fighter to Toshiden etc..

    The games I enjoyed on the PS1 / Saturn, were ones that played to the systems strengths. Games like Einhander, Klonoa, Guardian Heroes, Final Fantasy etc…

    For me, 3D platformers just didn’t ‘work’ on the PS1 / Saturn and no amount of tits could stop me from coming to that conclusion. I had Mario 64, why would I want to play something that felt awful to control? :)

    #42 1 year ago
  43. salarta

    @40: Actually, what makes Tomb Raider go down in history is the existence of a game that explicitly stars a female protagonist that’s smart, athletic, not even slightly a damsel in distress. Like the gameplay issue, the emphasis increasingly became on Lara’s breasts, because assumptions of what teenagers care about most and the typical male gaze in a male-dominated industry that desires women heavily sexualized for purposes of gratification. Sadly, as is all too common when something is repeated often enough, the story got changed to mean that breast size was literally the sole reason people bought the Tomb Raider games, especially when it helps sell a new game trying to radically change things. Easier to make major changes when its origins are vilified.

    Interestingly enough, Paul Dini recently revealed in discussion with Kevin Smith by podcast that network executives literally wanted girls to be depicted as slower, dumber, always sidekicks that are inferior to boys in every manner, under the thin excuse that girls watching those cartoons is supposedly bad because they supposedly “don’t buy toys.” The emphasis had to be on how awesome the boys supposedly were:

    I’d say original Lara’s downfall didn’t come from fans, it came from executives injecting biases into development and marketing as the series went on.

    @42: Yeah, a lot of the approach was a misguided idea of how to market toward teenagers, because Nintendo set things up, at least in the U.S., as games being mainly for kids. It’s sort of the dark part of adults assuming that all teenagers want to do nothing but have sex and get wasted because they’re young and don’t have adult responsibilities. I think PS1 era was about at that point when the industry started making a transition from “exciting market full of freedom and innovation out of a love of games” to “corporate entities headed up by CEOs that don’t even really care about games.”

    I preferred JRPGs on PS1. Mostly Squaresoft stuff. Granstream Saga and Thousand Arms were pretty fun, and most people didn’t seem to even know about them compared to games like Lunar and of course Final Fantasy. I don’t think 3D platformers were ready yet on PS1, it was just in that hazy area where how to do it was being discovered. It’s part of why JRPGs dominated for a while, none of the 3D exploration gameplay in those games required jumping around but it was able to take advantage of 3D gameplay to an extent and took full advantage of graphical power. It also started to provide more robust stories and characters than games normally did.

    #43 1 year ago
  44. Ireland Michael

    “Actually, what makes Tomb Raider go down in history is the existence of a game that explicitly stars a female protagonist that’s smart, athletic, not even slightly a damsel in distress.”

    With huge breasts and a barbie doll waist.

    There weren’t anywhere near as many girls or women playing games in the 90s as there are now, and I can reliably say, as somehow who was alive at the time, there were very few women actually playing Tomb Raider, and even less tooting her as any sort of role model. They has far better female characters to empathise with back then. Lara Croft was not the industry change icon she was made out to be.

    “Like the gameplay issue, the emphasis increasingly became on Lara’s breasts,”

    The focus was there right from the beginning, even in the original concept art, which was all levels of stereotypical horrible 90s comic but crap. I’m talking Rob Lienfeld levels of atrocity.

    “Sadly, as is all too common when something is repeated often enough, the story got changed to mean that breast size was literally the sole reason people bought. Tomb Raider games, especially when it helps sell a new game trying to radically change things. Easier to make major changes when its origins are vilified.”

    Or maybe, just maybe, that’s simply what we thought from the beginning. I know, crazy idea right? What part of “we thought it was shit and tacky back then” do you completely fail to comprehend?

    “It also started to provide more robust stories and characters than games normally did.”

    Which, hilariously, is the whole reason everyone prefers the rebooted Tomb Raider over the original.

    #44 1 year ago
  45. dizzygear

    Soul Reaver begs to differ that 3D platformers were not ready yet or did not work in the PS1 era.
    It didn’t even need tits and ass to sell itself either because it was just that good.

    #45 1 year ago
  46. monkeygourmet


    The exception to the rule! :)

    #46 1 year ago
  47. salarta

    @45: That goes back to the issue that some developers managing to do it well only means that some developers were able to do it well. 3D gameplay was still being explored and worked out.

    It’s important to keep the years of difference in mind. Tomb Raider 1, 2 and 3 came out before Soul Reaver, which came out in 1999. I still need to look at video of Last Revelation, the first game that came out after Soul Reaver’s release. If the gameplay was still much worse than Soul Reaver by then, then I’d have to say the team started getting lazy about the control issue, but by reception for that game it looks like the gameplay was considered good and much better than TRI – TRIII.

    #47 1 year ago
  48. Ireland Michael

    @45 Although I think its aged pretty poorly, I can say I at least enjoyed *that* one when I originally played it.

    The same can’t be said for Tomb Raider for… well, its entire existence up until the reboot,

    #48 1 year ago
  49. Rafa_L

    I agree that controls for Tomb Raider and Resident Evil are crap, but were good enough for time.

    It served me pretty well on both games, and stop mentioning Mario 64 every time as great controls, I have vivid memories of struggling against camera, it was shitty also. Played all those games, had fun, all were flawed and good for the time.

    Curious to see how it will play on iphone though, cant imagine it being fluid.

    #49 1 year ago

Comments are now closed on this article.