Tomb Raider: Anniversary

By Oli Welsh Published 2 May, 2007

Stuff of Legend.

When a preview version of this celebratory remake of the original Tomb Raider turned up in the post, it seemed like it would be fitting and respectful to do a little archaeology ourselves. Vaults were cracked open, dust brushed, ancient code decyphered; the trash and treasures of a long-lost era were rifled through on a quest for answers. The Tomb of PlayStation the First was gutted in search of a copy of Core Design's 1996 classic. When we eventually unearthed one, and subjected it to the harsh glare of modernity (in the form of a PS3, an HDMI cable and an acreage of liquid crystal Lara herself would think twice about scaling) we got a couple of shocks.

The first was unpleasant. The game looked and felt a lot more than eleven years old. The grey Peruvian caves were rendered in wobbling, jagged pixels the size of your fist, and Lara jogged around them excruciatingly slowly, fumbling and shuffling hesitantly towards every awkward jump and laboured clamber.

The second shock, though, was much more pleasant, and much more of a surprise. Beneath the clumsy controls and technical limitations was an incredibly modern, forward-thinking game. Its cinematic style, rich atmosphere, and pitch-perfect pacing were all way ahead of their time. So were the lock-on third-person gunplay, the dynamic musical score, and the slick, clean interface. Here, in short, was a game absolutely crying out for the remake treatment: virtually unwatchable and unplayable by current standards, but still totally relevant.

'Tomb Raider: Anniversary' Screenshot 1

Lara Croft: one-woman extinction event. You'd think a scientist would be more careful.

As we reported back in February, the tack Eidos and Tomb Raider: Legend developer Crystal Dynamics have taken with this new version is to preserve the spirit, story and structure of the original, but rewrite the details to fit the Legend template. Although it includes all the original game's settings and most memorable moments, Anniversary looks and plays almost exactly like the classy Legend, itself heavily inspired by Ubisoft's recent Prince of Persia games.

You have fully analogue control of Lara, and the focus is on stringing together long chains of fast, flowing acrobatic moves to navigate the crumbling tombs. Her acrobatic range is as it was in Legend, including the grappling hook and ledge-hanging moves, and the use of the triangle button to recover quickly from a bad landing, or rhythmically speed up climbing moves. A new, minor new addition is the ability to jump to and balance on very small platforms, such as the tops of poles.

It's still an intuitive, beautifully animated and richly satisfying platforming system, and going by the first few levels of the game, it seems likely Anniversary will exploit it more fully than Legend did. In attempting to recreate the feel of the original Tomb Raider, Crystal Dynamics has reined in its penchant for blockbusting set-pieces, done away with all but a few human characters and discarded gadgets like the clue-giving binoculars. Anniversary is all about Lara, alone, making her way through frighteningly huge and deserted ruins, negotiating traps and puzzles with the bare minimum of equipment. Even in the early levels we've played - all in Peru, the first of the game's four locations, which also include Greece and Egypt - the scale and intricacy of the environments are a step up from Legend's, and the routes through the biggest complexes of rooms are noticeably less linear. They're also even better suited to the returning Time Trials.

'Tomb Raider: Anniversary' Screenshot 2

The sheer scale of the ruins dwarfs the original game.

The game's desolate atmosphere has also required a few small changes to Legend's combat system. This is because, in keeping with the original game, you'll largely be fighting beasts, not men: wolves, bats, panthers, dinosaurs - seems time has been forgetting itself and mislaying valleys again, the sieve-for-brains. The animals' lack of projectile weapons (or the prehensile digits to operate them) and their charging attack patterns force a different rhythm on fights.

Lara's melee attacks have been stripped out, as have the showy, scripted environmental interactions. In their place are a quick knockdown recovery, and the adrenaline dodge. The latter is a slow-mo acrobatic dodge that can be engaged when an assailant gets enraged and charges, blurring the screen; hit X while somersaulting out of the way to dispatch the beast with a mid-air headshot. Both moves help ease the genuine frustration and panic of the combat, a double-edged sword that's been all-too-accurately transposed from the 1996 Tomb Raider. Fights are less staged than they were in Legend, more messy, and more genuinely scary.

There are one or two moments that are the exact opposite, though. Occasionally during these first few levels - very, very occasionally - Anniversary uses the button-prompt interactive cutscenes that featured in Legend, and are pretty much de rigueur in any headlining, mass-market action-adventure these days. They don't sit nearly so well in the sparse, contemplative surroundings of pure Tomb Raider. That said, considering they're mostly used to add spice to something that was a prerendered CGI sequence 11 years ago, they're pretty inoffensive. With one exception.

It was never going to be the same second time around, of course. But the appearance of the T-rex in Tomb Raider still ranks in most people's top ten gaming moments for a reason - because it came out of nowhere in the course of regular play, and because, terrifyingly, Lara had to deal with the gigantic monster just as she would with any other animal. In Anniversary, the moment's been neutered, turned into a by-the-numbers boss fight book-ended with scripted, Simon-says set-pieces that must have been supposed to make it more dramatic, but in fact make it less so.

'Tomb Raider: Anniversary' Screenshot 3

Lara jumps to the top of poles with ease, but you'll need to move on fast or risk losing balance.

However, it says a lot about Tomb Raider: Anniversary - and just as much about its inspiration - that in the first three levels, it's only this one moment where old and new are in less than perfect harmony. On paper it's the ideal remake, fresh and nostalgic at the same time, capturing the eerie atmosphere no Tomb Raider has had since 1996 and blending it with the smooth, easygoing elegance Crystal Dynamics brought to the series ten years later. The slick graphics and superlatively creepy sound - including a subtle musical score that is, unbelievably, an improvement on the original - are the icing on the cake. It's as much a sequel to Legend as a remake of Tomb Raider, and thanks to its purity of focus, it might even better last year's game.

What remains to be seen is whether Crystal Dynamics' reworked level design is interesting and challenging enough to sustain interest over its entire length, without resorting to the showboating that worked well enough in Legend but, as the T-Rex incident shows, can only cheapen this long, lonely experience. On the basis of the hypnotic, echoing halls we've seen so far, it has every chance.

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (64) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • krudster #1 5 years ago

    360 version please!

  • spliffhead #2 5 years ago

    Seconded!

    360 port surely worth 5 minutes of someones lunch break at Crystal Dy?

  • Blerk #3 5 years ago

    Excellent! I'm rubbing my legs in anticipation!

    Ow. Friction burn.

  • bushwod #4 5 years ago

    "pixels the size of your fist"

    LOL

  • Cloudane #5 5 years ago

    The 'Xbox 360 version' comments are starting to grate now.

    It is on the PS2; enjoy it on the format it has been developed for.

  • Agent_Llama #6 5 years ago

    Don't mess with the T-Rex bit! :o(

  • Hog-lumps #7 5 years ago

    Anniversary is all about Lara, alone, making her way through frighteningly huge and deserted ruins, negotiating traps and puzzles with the bare minimum of equipment.

    This paragraph alone was all I wanted to hear!!

  • nickthegun #8 5 years ago

    All i need now is a remixed anniversary edition of 'Entroducing' to accompany it and I can recreate my 17th birthday.

    And what exactly is wrong with wanting a 360 version?

  • Stilicho #9 5 years ago

    So did you play the preview version on a PS3? And if so, did you encounter any problems?

  • ZuluHero #10 5 years ago

    Given the price difference in ps2, pc, and 360 and even though i got the 360 version of Legend - im probably gonna get this on PC and bung a 360 pad into a USB.

    £17.99 over £39.99 or £49.99 folks :)

    Still the game is looking great! And i really can't wait ^^

  • siro #11 5 years ago

    I want an original xbox version. :( Legends rocked on it.

  • MrWonderstuff #12 5 years ago

    360 version please. Got a PC too, but it would be nice to sit back and play on the sofa.

  • Dr.Haggard #13 5 years ago

    What worries me about this is that almost everyone seems to think Legend was great, and to be honest if that's the case I don't trust your opinion on Anniversary.

    That said this does sound ok, just about, but I can't help thinking I might as well just play the original again rather than buy this. On PC the original can still look ok, and unless Crystal Dynamics have actually been able to improve on the atmosphere then I don't see any reason to play Anniversary. In fact it sounds like that's the only thing they've managed to retain, which I suppose is to their credit.

    Things like "looks and plays almost exactly like the classy Legend" and "the focus is on stringing together long chains of fast, flowing acrobatic moves" might be plus points to some but they really put me off :(

  • drumbaby #14 5 years ago

    Works on PS3?! Preorders!!! This is now my most wanted game :)

  • SBfistfun #15 5 years ago

    @Dr.Haggard

    You're not alone Dr Haggard, I thought Legend was poo as well.

    Don't mess with the classics! Cripes 11 years old, I can't believe it.....

  • WickedDeeJ #16 5 years ago

    Nothing wrong with wanting a 360 version, I got Legend on the 360. I think it may have been a stylistic choice on the part of Eidos, since Anniversary is old school TR rather than "modern" TR as introduced in Legend.

    I never cared for the old games, honestly; but I tried the demo of Legend and loved it. That being said; if it sells well on PC and PS2 there's probably a chance a 360 port will come later, unless of course all of Crystal Dynamics' 360 coding team are busy working on the next-gen TR, naturally.

  • cools #17 5 years ago

    360 please, and lose the QTEs.

  • JYM60 #18 5 years ago

    Will tomb raider ps1 be coming to psp from the PSN store?

  • krudster #19 5 years ago

    What's the betting the 360 version will be announced just before launch?

  • joeking #20 5 years ago

    Yeah, 360 version please! Pretty please?

  • ecureuil #21 5 years ago

    PS3 version please. It's always been a PlayStation game, really, and it makes sense..
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/07 @ 10:15

  • ZuluHero #22 5 years ago

    @Dr.Haggard, SBfistfun

    You don't have to buy it you know? Just play the original :)

    And SBfistfun where's the pun? I was expecting at least a "Womb Raider" from you? :p
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/07 @ 10:16

  • morriss #23 5 years ago

    +1 Krudster

  • joeking #24 5 years ago

    Insider info krudster? ;)

    I hope so because I'm going to get a wired 360 controller and the PC version if Eidos don't play ball with the 360. I REALLY want to play this game!

    @ ecureuil

    Not really. Tomb Raider 1 was on the Saturn and PC, so it's not really a 'PlayStation' game. It just happens to be synonymous with Sony's console because at the height of its fame [TR], the PS was the only name in town.

  • ecureuil #25 5 years ago

    It just happens to be synonymous with Sony's console because at the height of its fame [TR], the PS was the only name in town.

    Which is why I said it's a PlayStation game, really.</a> While technically it wasn't, it's most fondly remembered for being a PS1 game.

  • Goban #26 5 years ago

    \o/

  • SeesThroughAll #27 5 years ago

    So what about a PS3 version as well?

  • rhinoxious #28 5 years ago

    Of course if you were looking to replay the original Tomb Raider, you should really have dug out your Sega Saturn instead

  • itamae #29 5 years ago

    Sounds excellent. So, when's this one out again?

  • sharpfish #30 5 years ago

    QUOTE "Things like "looks and plays almost exactly like the classy Legend" and "the focus is on stringing together long chains of fast, flowing acrobatic moves" might be plus points to some but they really put me off :("

    I'm with you on that, this looks a lot better than legend (which was a "good" game but not proper tomb raider; emphasis on shooting humans and convoluted set pieces rather than spending lots of time working things out and exploring like in the original).

    I have very fond memories of TR1 (on PS1), it was *the* game to talk about at work, everyone was playing it and talking about bits of it. The Lost Valley/T-Rex part was great at the time (yeah the 'suprise' has now gone, this game may be intended for newcommers!). And even with those (now primative) graphics, at the time it conveyed it's environments and atmosphere very well. It felt like you were walking on damp, ancient ground that no human had been on for thousands of years... completely lost in later titles. The title music was also great so I hope they have done a re-recording of that along the same lines.

    Legend saw Lara completely out of place a lot of times, lacking in atmosphere but yes it looked quite pretty. Too much gunfighting and not enough exploring/discovery. Everything you needed to progress was obviously layed out for you just to move around a bit. And the emphasis on acrobatics got pretty tiring (and it's very unrealistic - felt like I was playing some gymnasitcs simulator rather than an arcade adventure).

    Very glad to hear there are less humans in the new game, which will go a long way to keeping the desloate atmosphere going, though I still worry that it's going to be too similar to be "anything new" to old players like me, while being different enough to still not feel entirely like the original with upgraded tech.

    Put me down as "interested" and we'll see how the reviews go. Tomb Raider, while It's high on my video game nostaliga charts, has to do a lot to convince me it's still an exciting proposition this long after it's debut.

    Oh and... I'm up for a 360 version too (I thought this had already been confirmed ages ago?), no 360 version then definately no purchase from me. :)
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/07 @ 10:43

  • SBfistfun #31 5 years ago

    @ZuluHero

    Aye good point, I must be coming down with something!

  • The_Inquisitor #32 5 years ago

    I was a bit dissappointed that there was no 360 version when I first heard, but given the quality of the recent PS2 games released, there is no reason why it can't still look great. I just hope levels like Cistern and Colosseum retain their gloomy atmosphere.
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/07 @ 11:35

  • BrokenSymmetry #33 5 years ago

    krudster said: "What's the betting the 360 version will be announced just before launch?"

    Or, if they're really devious, the 360 version will be announced just after launch, so that people will buy both the PS2 or PC version and the 360 version.

  • Makkuro #34 5 years ago

    And what exactly is wrong with wanting a 360 version?

    Wanting it? Nothing wrong with that. It does get a bit tiresome to see endless "me too" posts about it after every article, though.

  • Twinfalls #35 5 years ago

    What? Can somebody please clarify: the T-Rex sequence has been changed into a Shenmue QTE-style button-prompt sequence? Or just coralled off into a standard boss-monster room? Either way sucks, and bodes poorly for the rest of the game. These surprise moments were a key element, such as the statues that burst alive near the end.

  • joeking #36 5 years ago

    I've never understood why there isn't more love for TR: The Last Revelation. It's the closest in the series to TR1's lonely adventurer atmosphere. I loved it personally and it's arguably my favourite of all the TR games, although it was hard as nails at times!

  • ecureuil #37 5 years ago

    Wanting it? Nothing wrong with that. It does get a bit tiresome to see endless "me too" posts about it after every article, though.

    And also that everyone is asking for a 360 version and not a PS3 version.

  • beep #38 5 years ago

    The grey Peruvian caves were rendered in wobbling, jagged pixels the size of your fist, and Lara jogged around them excruciatingly slowly, fumbling and shuffling hesitantly towards every awkward jump and laboured clamber.

    The PAL version of Tomb Raider was vvveeery slow, but the NTSC version is not too bad. The PAL versions of TR2, 3 & 4 (& 5 probably), were even worse as they featured frameskipping to compensate for speed. The NTSC versions were smooth and fast (or normal speed if you prefer). /end rant

  • Daikon #39 5 years ago

    It's always been a PlayStation game, really

    That's what you think. I just happen to know that the first Tomb Raider was released just about simultaneously on Saturn and PC also.

  • ecureuil #40 5 years ago


    That's what you think. I just happen to know that the first Tomb Raider was released just about simultaneously on Saturn and PC also.

    I know, you muppet. I own both the Saturn and the PC version.

    I'm just saying that the series is known to be a PlayStation series. People relate Tomb Raider to Sony and PlayStation. I'm not, and never was trying to claim that the game was only on the PS1. Jesus christ.. I already explained that once.

    /headdesk
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/07 @ 12:33

  • JonFE #41 5 years ago

    krudster, I hope Eidos will hurry with that 360 announcement, because the longer I wait, the closer I get to the PC version and I know I'll regret it in the end.

  • joeking #42 5 years ago

    +1

    I'm not a PC gamer. Never have been, never will be.

    Okay, that's not strictly true. Football Manager is one of my favourite games. And being the WWII, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Brothers in Arms buff that I am, I took an impulse buy punt on Company of Heroes, and I must say, it's really rather good.

    However, it's an RTS, so not really suited to consoles anyway. And all the fiddling that it took me to get it to run smoothly on my decent albeit non-gaming laptop solidified just why I generally give PC gaming a w-i-d-e berth.

    However, I simply must play TR:A, by hook or by crook, and if that means buying a wired 360 controller and a Windows copy of the game, then so be it.

    But please Eidos. Please don't make me have to do it. I'd much rather play on it the 360, on my big TV, in DD5.1 surround, whilst sitting in my comfy recliner chair. Please let it be so. Please announce a 360 port already.....

    ;_;

  • ratso #43 5 years ago

    afaik, it was actually designed for the saturn first.

    saturn version was supposed to be better in some way, i played both but ive forgotten now

  • ecureuil #44 5 years ago

    afaik, it was actually designed for the saturn first.

    saturn version was supposed to be better in some way, i played both but ive forgotten now

    Yeah, I thought that, too. The Saturn version was poor in comparison, though.

  • agparrot #45 5 years ago

    I'm just saying that the series is known to be a PlayStation series.

    I'm with ecureuil on this, and would even go as far as to say that Tomb Raider - despite being pretty much identical on the Saturn and 'station, was a system seller for the PS1.

    At a time when it was still fairly uncommon for 'non-gamers' to own a console, its breathtaking 3D environment (blocky as it seems now), relatively accessible control method and, erm, inviting protagonist made it something quite different than what had come before in many ways.

    I'm not saying it was some sort of revolutionary, I *know* it looked better on the PC, but at a time when clubbers were coming home and playing Wipeout on their playstations, this was, certainly amongst my circle of friends and acquaintances, one of the games that made them not worry about how geeky it was to play games.

    This, and things like being able to play Ridge Racer in your home, was the sort of thing that started to turn the tide for gaming, and Yes, ecu, is certainly associated in my mind with the playstation brand.

    PS3 version please! ;P

  • spliffhead #46 5 years ago

    I think the Saturn version came out a whole 7 days before the PS1/pc version, could be wrong.

  • Hughes. #47 5 years ago

    How about the save system? I couldn't stand having to endure dying just short of a save crystal and having to flog through 20 minutes of block pushing I'd just gone through before.

    And does the 360 really still need PS2 games? Especially PS2 games that are remakes of PS1 games!

  • JonFE #48 5 years ago

    "And does the 360 really still need PS2 games? Especially PS2 games that are remakes of PS1 games!"

    Well, I guess the 360 needs good games -just like any other console system, for that matter- regardless of their origin.
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/07 @ 13:33

  • quantumsheep #49 5 years ago

    "I think the Saturn version came out a whole 7 days before the PS1/pc version, could be wrong."

    I think it was more like a month, but like you, I could be wrong.

  • Machetazo #50 5 years ago

    Did you, EG, get to see how St. Francis' Folly looks, these days? That was really something, back in the day, even on Saturn. /looks down! Agh! :D

    So long as the PS2 version's backwards compatible on PS3, I won't be tempted to again add to the "grating" requests. (Had the poster not mentioned it, I wasn't going to ask, either! :p )

  • chupachups #51 5 years ago

    "PS3 version please. It's always been a PlayStation game, really, and it makes sense.."

    I think TR1 was actually written for the Sega Saturn, then ported. The evidence for this is something to do with triangular polygons, or something...

  • SomaticSense #52 5 years ago

    Call me shallow, but reading about the remade T-Rex section has turned this game from an absolute must-have, to a 'hmm, might as well save my money and leave it'.

    From everything I've previously about this game I was led to believe that everything would be kept the same, but with updated graphics and Legend's controls. Sounds like they couldn't resist fucking with it though, so if they felt the need the piss about with that classic scene then I dread to think what they've done to the rest....
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/07 @ 14:51

  • Darren #53 5 years ago

    I'd like this to come out on the 360 (and/or PS3) otherwise I'll be buying it on the PC, less ideal but possibly the best option if there's no current-gen console version forthcoming.

  • bonker #54 5 years ago

    Well forgive me for being old and fooked but this sounds like it will be the kind of atmospheric platform puzzler that really gives me a semi.

    Based on previous late release announcements, what's a likely timescale for the 360 version hitting the stores?
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/07 @ 15:13

  • Agent_Llama #55 5 years ago

    I do worry about the inclusion of Shenmue-esque QTE events - I really don't like them one bit. They feel tacked on, breaking the flow of a game. If they've done that to the T-Rex, then big thumbs-down. Ditto if they've turned it into a boss fight - it should just be there, part of the normal gameplay.

    I agree about Last Revelation most closely matching the atmosphere of the original - wandering about those Egyptian tombs brought a lot of the old feelings back. A pity there were those awful levels in the town.

  • ecureuil #56 5 years ago

    Well, Wikipedia says..

    "The first glints of the game were seen on Sega Saturn development kits. However, ultimately, it would be the PlayStation rendition that would be known best."

    About the T-rex scene - I can live with the QTE at the end, but please tell me it's not introduced via a cut scene. The best part was having it come out of the shadows, then scrambling to backtrack to the little cave. It really does sound like they've ruined it, though.

  • Murbal #57 5 years ago

    Mermories... £60 the original cost me because I finally had to cave in to buying a memory card with it. Ahh...

  • smelly #58 5 years ago

    "PS3 version please. It's always been a PlayStation game, really, and it makes sense.."


    Why on earth would they make a ps3 version? It'd be a port of a ps2 game which is a remake of a saturn game - on a machine which hasnt sold jack all yet.

    It wouldnt sell jack shite, without them starting again and doing a brand new remake - and selling it when the ps3 has some .. you know.. userbase.

  • smelly #59 5 years ago

    "Well, I guess the 360 needs good games -just like any other console system, for that matter- regardless of their origin."


    so you'd be happy with ports of ps2 games?

  • smelly #60 5 years ago

    @bcolter:

    "Cloudane "It is on the PS2; enjoy it on the format it has been developed for. "

    Dumb post of the day!"



    Erm, i actually agree with him.

    The "current gen" hasnt really started yet.. there are still 120 million ps2's out there and only a handfull of 360s/ps3s..

    To take genuine advantage of the 360/ps3 it'd have to be a remake of the remake.. which'd be nonsense.

    And if all they did was up-res the textures and put some shiny stuff onto the ps3/360 versions then it wouldnt sell for that reason.

    After all you lot keep posting about how zelda tp on the wii doesnt count as a true next gen game as it's a cube port. So therefor if they're reading these forums, then they'd know not to bother.

  • Scimarad #61 5 years ago

    Legend isn't bad, particularly, but I think it's a bit crap compared to the original game. The levels just seem so small and and lacking in puzzles by comparison, though that could be my memory playing tricks on me.

  • Kostabi #62 5 years ago

    so you'd be happy with ports of ps2 games?

    Yes, because a good game is a good game regardless of portage.

    I don't really care if it doesn't make full use of the 360 hardware or challenge Gears on the graphical stakes. I enjoyed Legend on the Xboxen Circle and would like more of that with Anniversary.

    For the record I've got a PS2 aswell but when it comes to a choice between 360 pad or Dualshock I'll take the game on a non Sony platform thank you please.

  • RexRunti #63 5 years ago

    Also this isn't just a PS2 game it's also a PC game, so they already have HD textures etc. so PC to Xbox360 port isn't too much to ask is it.

  • VMerken #64 5 years ago

    Production costs, Sigmagoat. The Legend engine is adequate, already here and more than willing to be tinkered with. That way, the remake won't have a large price tag attached to it. Heck, it's what the original series did :).

    I think it's safe to assume that release platforms will be the same as for Legend. Don't see any reason why there should be a difference.

    With that said, yumm. Midas Palace, Cistern, St. Francis Folly - brings back good memories (actually I replayed the original a year ago and am impressed by how much fun the levels still are).

    Oh, and Eurogamer, a humble observation: please don't play PS1/PS2 games on a PS3 in order to comment on its graphics and such. Not until emulation is completely perfect at least - stick to a stock PS1 or PS2 and a regular TV for a correct graphical interpretation. Most certainly in the PS1 case, whose games weren't made for HD at all - if I were to fire up a c64 emulator at HD resolution and run something on it the uberlegoblockiness of the pixels would probably get to me, too. On a TV at its native resolution, everything will look much better or, at the very least, correct.